On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:34:52PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (03/09/13 00:25), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 03:35:11PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (21/08/13 13:46), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
>> >Sorry it took so long before we got to another review of the patch. The
>> >ticket is targeted for 1.12 so initially I was thinking of the patchset
>> >as lower priority than the other work.
>> >
>> >On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:32:29AM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> >> On (24/07/13 09:41), Ondrej Kos wrote:
>> >> >On 07/23/2013 06:21 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> >> >>ehlo,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>It would be great to have enabled printf format string checking
in RHEL7.
>> >> >>Therefore I decided to send pateches for ticket
>> >> >>https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1945
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Patch 0001 -- Even if this patch is first, it should be applied
in upstream as
>> >> >> last.
>> >
>> > ^^^^ Does it matter? I'll apply the whole set anyway..
>> It can make a big noise in case of bisecting.
>> I moved this patch to the end.
>
>Thanks. I'll try to remember to ask someone to double-check before pushing
>:-)
>
>>
>> >
>> >Some comments below..
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Patch 0002 - 0006 -- trivial
>> >> >>Patch 0007 -- ssize_t is not defined in ANSI c99, IIRC it is
defined in posix
>> >> >> as a signed type, therefore format should be
used "zd"
>> >> >>Patch 0008 -- size_t is defined in ANSI c99 as unzigned type
-> "zu"
>> >
>> >btw size_t seems to be part of standard library, not the language
>> >specification per se. Not that it matters for the patch :)
>> size_t can be part of standard library, but ANSI c99 says size_t is unsigned
>> type.
>>
>> Problem is that sizeof(size_t) is different on 32-bit platform and 64-bit
>> platform
>
>OK
>
>>
>> >
>> >> >>Patch 0009 -- wrapper for inttypes.h and for future format
macros.
>> >> >>Patch 0012 -- formating types defined in stdint.h uint_32_t
...
>> >> >> -- there are used macros defined in inttypes.h
>> >> >>Patches 0010 - 0015 fix formating for special variables
(key_serial_t, rlim_t...)
>> >> >> and for some types I created macros in
sss_format.h
>> >> >>Patch 0010 -- key_serial_t is typedef of int32_t, but it could
be defined
>> >> >> differently in another (platforms/ implemantations of
kerberos)
>> >> >>Patch 0011 -- it seems that rlim_t us the same as uint64_t, but
it was defined
>> >> >> using conditional build an not a typedef of std
types.
>> >> >>Patch 0013 -- time_t is defined as "long int"
sizeof_i386(time_t) != sizeof_x86_64(time_t)
>> >> >>Patch 0014 -- ber_int and ber_tag are typedef for int and
unsigned long
>> >> >>Patch 0015 -- gid_t and uid_t are typedef as unsigned
>> >> >> (I checked linux 32 bit, linu 64_bit and freebsd
64 bit)
>> >
>> >Actually /usr/include/bits/typesizes.h says:
>> >#define __UID_T_TYPE __U32_TYPE
>> and you forgot to add:
>> shell$ grep -RniI __U32_TYPE
>> bits/types.h:101:#define __U32_TYPE unsigned int
>
>I think this is lucky coincidence where unsigned int is 32bits wide.
>
>But to be honest I haven't found any information that would state that
>uid_t or gid_t is guaranteed to be 32bit (even though some places in the
>SSSD rely on uid_t == uint32_t). As far as I can see, POSIX simply says
>that both are opaque numeric types. Too bad the system headers don't
>provide some kind of format specifier..
>
>I wonder if we should check the width during configure and define our
>own specifier based on what we discover?
>
>>
>> >
>> >(and then defines __UID_T_TYPE to __uid_t which in turn gets typedefed to
uid_t)
>> >
>
>[snip]
>
>> >> Subject: [PATCH 10/16] Fix formating of variables with type:
key_serial_t
>> >> Subject: [PATCH 11/16] Fix formating of variables with type: rlim_t
>> >> Subject: [PATCH 12/16] Fix formating of variables with type defined in
stdint.h
>> >
>> >Nice, I didn't know these existed. But to be honest, these format
specifiers
>> >seem ugly to me..wouldn't it be nicer to cast the variables to a larger
type
>> >(long or unsigned long) and then use plan C conversion?
>> I agree with Stephen casting is not very portable.
>> Some platforms needn't have defned long long unsigend or there can be
another
>> type which is bigger.
>>
>> uintmax_t/intmax_t could be used as the larget type.
>> In this case modifier "j" should be used
>> format_fun("%jd %ju\n" (uintmax_t) uint_8_var,
(intmax_t)int8_t_var)
>> but it is overkill to cast uint_8_var to 64_vit variable (or in future 128
bit:-)
>>
>> And last point. I don't like casting of argumets in formating functions.
>>
>> ------------------
>> "man inttypes.h" is very helpful
>> ------------------
>
>OK, I'm convinced :-)
>
>>
>> >> Subject: [PATCH 13/16] Fix formating of variables with type: time_t
>> >I think this is OK, my C reference says that time_t can be of "any
arithmetic
>> >type" but also states that long is traditionally used.
>> >
>> >> Subject: [PATCH 14/16] Fix formating of variables with ber_ type
>> >ACK
>> >
>> >> Subject: [PATCH 15/16] Fix formating of variables with type: [gu]?id_t
>> >
>> >This is the main point of discussion in the patchset I think. IIRC POSIX
>> >states that IDs are 32bit unsigned integers. That's precisely why we
have
>> >casted them up to unsigned (long) long. Did you see warnings with some
>> >strict combination of CFLAGS?
>> >
>> -Wformat is automatically enabled by -Wall, There is no problem with CFLAGS.
>> You can try to revert this patch (or do not apply this patch)
>> And warnings will appear. clang gives more hints.
>>
>> But it is possibel to add another macro to header file sss_format.h
>>
>> >> Subject: [PATCH 16/16] Fix warning: data argument not used by format
string
>> >Oof, these are bad. Thank you. ACK.
>> Those fixes are not critical, only unsufficient information will be printed.
>>
>> Updated patches are attached.
>>
>> LS
>
>Sorry the review has stalled for a bit. I think that once we resolve the
>uid_t patch, we can push the whole patchset.
I added 3 new macros for formating [ug]?id types: PRIid, PRIgid, PRIuid
I like this approach. I just wonder if we should namespace these to say
SPRI instead? Would it be too much work or doable with a
search-and-replace?
BTW: I rebased patches and spot 3 new warnings :-)
Yeah, we really need to push these patches..
index
efaa247dd22d2ae100e8881c010dfe26a9a10cca..5f2465ca6d8aef7fc486a033e7d3759050c0dec8 100644
--- a/src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_initgroups_ad.c
+++ b/src/providers/ldap/sdap_async_initgroups_ad.c
@@ -472,7 +472,7 @@ sdap_get_ad_tokengroups_initgroups_lookup_done(struct tevent_req
*subreq)
}
DEBUG(SSSDBG_TRACE_LIBS,
- ("Processing membership GID [%lu]\n",
+ ("Processing membership GID [%u]\n",
gid));
This change is overwritten in a later patch.
I couldn't apply patches 7 and 16, can you rebase?