From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A125C3CCFB2 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2026 12:00:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774440028; cv=none; b=Nb2ed05x+vCiw/M7IunrHslBxFMUSt/pjEcQe/x8BkmJez6kESfX4bU3XeisA0VZNICe9OBcynj4aC0isvXZSDu/SCpdoVZDmdzcjjUGd38zvB7M7RzUPPZX8V5Ijx9hs/7CEyBs9F7Fl/lGa4kTCa40M/9IvN15IXoMhBIFit8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774440028; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zioXBIyc07+RdzxW9Q4NaYhpkN2r7a+hdEgDyiO8h/g=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=FsQXswaqbrKteR4tRZKyd3TQOATCV0qKITen+O8FtOhUqTeQYsRA8Cx+HycES6WpVsKsq3sSLqFXrU1/wfxLHDkBT+Qfu2gwgAKaxmQ5dRySSR+TlaKiJ7SRICZns1IWYWm+x/1h8NJqXHilKxP0vC9j+zuJljBk8RxBVLoIJwg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=JFZNYpmM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="JFZNYpmM" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1774440028; x=1805976028; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=zioXBIyc07+RdzxW9Q4NaYhpkN2r7a+hdEgDyiO8h/g=; b=JFZNYpmM7aczMzazixjziclumxRQFe4N1YhygOWdr8g2NVKW6PD8JaeP LZ0g/W7Y0nba4yp+XxRvpV15/kh4dKvq0Szcq/VAjsWN92wi5ww/FCqaU DS1+UZY9uvmR/ONiOT8mzGPy1ZBjZ67GCrdafxfOF5efabRnNKzEVbNeQ b7HB0Pzd4hcpUgHOrM8g67IrykanZgfJ9lCqH8Bu2AqfGtzEwf0g9kFE4 weVRkybXF7OBgelEEttCc/tAWUy4/hHE7oP3uAzYpu1J4ExreeszD6tso kM4hRhzEiX21Ei1v+bo7mK110SExtzYmGNhbxyy3+23gjGi4lSdoY2EaX Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 9wpxB9LFS/eX02udSdA7Tg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: fVTIQJ3QTPGLDBl87EsHOA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11739"; a="75663810" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,140,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="75663810" Received: from fmviesa007.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.147]) by orvoesa108.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Mar 2026 05:00:27 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: neElgDDZSY6ovtpxFJoV7A== X-CSE-MsgGUID: QQxycMMRQZK1F+l3FRKbxw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,140,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="221345356" Received: from dalessan-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.245.32]) by fmviesa007-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Mar 2026 05:00:20 -0700 Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2026 14:00:17 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Josh Law Cc: Petr Mladek , Steven Rostedt , Rasmus Villemoes , Sergey Senozhatsky , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] lib/vsprintf: use int for field_width in vsscanf() Message-ID: References: <20260324224940.50508-1-objecting@objecting.org> <20260324224940.50508-4-objecting@objecting.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260324224940.50508-4-objecting@objecting.org> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 10:49:39PM +0000, Josh Law wrote: > vsscanf() declares field_width as s16 but assigns it from skip_atoi() > which returns int. Values above 32767 silently truncate to negative, > causing vsscanf() to abort all remaining parsing. This is inconsistent > with struct printf_spec which uses int for field_width. Is the field_width an acceptable integer range by the specifications? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko