Re: [can-next] can: proc: remove pointers from CAN specific proc output

On 14.08.26 15:52, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:

On 2026-08-14 15:36:03 [+0200], Oliver Hartkopp wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

--- a/Documentation/networking/can.rst
+++ b/Documentation/networking/can.rst

@@ -1040,19 +1040,19 @@ As described in :ref:`socketcan-receive-lists` the SocketCAN core uses several f
   lists to deliver received CAN frames to CAN protocol modules. These
   receive lists, their filters and the count of filter matches can be
   checked in the appropriate receive list. All entries contain the
   device and a protocol module identifier::
-    foo@bar:~$ cat /proc/net/can/rcvlist_all
+    foo@bar:~$ cat /proc/net/can/rcvlist_fil

Is this _fil a typo?

No, it's a slightly different example.

okay then.

quoted

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/net/can/proc.c b/net/can/proc.c
index de4d05ae3459..b7858fb66178 100644
--- a/net/can/proc.c
+++ b/net/can/proc.c

@@ -189,30 +189,35 @@ static void can_print_rcvlist(struct seq_file *m, struct hlist_head *rx_list,
   			      struct net_device *dev)
   {
   	struct receiver *r;
   	hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(r, rx_list, list) {
-		char *fmt = (r->can_id & CAN_EFF_FLAG)?
-			"   %-5s  %08x  %08x  %pK  %pK  %8ld  %s\n" :
-			"   %-5s     %03x    %08x  %pK  %pK  %8ld  %s\n";
+		char *fmt;
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KALLSYMS)

Please don't. I fix %ps and then there is no leak. There will be then
the 0 and everything will be fine.

I can wait for your changes before the v2 posting.

Btw. do you think "0" is a good return value, when people expect a function
name?

What about "(unknown)" or something similar?

Yeah, that '(unknown)' looks slightly better.

quoted

quoted

quoted

+		fmt = (r->can_id & CAN_EFF_FLAG)?
+			"  %6s  %08x  %08x  %8ld  %016llx  %ps\n" :
+			"  %6s     %03x    %08x  %8ld  %016llx  %ps\n";
   		seq_printf(m, fmt, DNAME(dev), r->can_id, r->mask,
-			   r->func, r->data, atomic_long_read(&r->matches),
-			   r->ident);
+			   atomic_long_read(&r->matches), r->ino, r->func);
+#else
+		fmt = (r->can_id & CAN_EFF_FLAG)?
+			"  %6s  %08x  %08x  %8ld  %016llx  (unknown)\n" :
+			"  %6s     %03x    %08x  %8ld  %016llx  (unknown)\n";
+		seq_printf(m, fmt, DNAME(dev), r->can_id, r->mask,
+			   atomic_long_read(&r->matches), r->ino);
+#endif
   	}
   }

…

So if you do this now, then I probably should remove that hunk from my
patch.

IMHO these /proc/net/can changes go far beyond replacing the pointer values
with "0".

I hope the
Suggested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
is ok for your attribution?!?

That is fine. I just mean I should drop that hunk and repost to avoid
the pointless collision here.

Yep. Thanks!