[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200324153643.15527-21-will@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2020 15:36:42 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Maddie Stone <maddiestone@...gle.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
kernel-team@...roid.com,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: [RFC PATCH 20/21] list: Format CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION error messages consistently
The error strings printed when list data corruption is detected are
formatted inconsistently.
Satisfy my inner-pedant by consistently using ':' to limit the message
from its prefix and drop the terminating full stops where they exist.
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
---
lib/list_debug.c | 18 +++++++++---------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/list_debug.c b/lib/list_debug.c
index 3be50b5c8014..00e414508f93 100644
--- a/lib/list_debug.c
+++ b/lib/list_debug.c
@@ -23,10 +23,10 @@ bool __list_add_valid(struct list_head *new, struct list_head *prev,
struct list_head *next)
{
if (CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next->prev != prev,
- "list_add corruption. next->prev should be prev (%px), but was %px. (next=%px).\n",
+ "list_add corruption: next->prev should be prev (%px), but was %px (next=%px)\n",
prev, next->prev, next) ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev->next != next,
- "list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (%px), but was %px. (prev=%px).\n",
+ "list_add corruption: prev->next should be next (%px), but was %px (prev=%px)\n",
next, prev->next, prev) ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(new == prev || new == next,
"list_add double add: new=%px, prev=%px, next=%px.\n",
@@ -45,16 +45,16 @@ bool __list_del_entry_valid(struct list_head *entry)
next = entry->next;
if (CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next == LIST_POISON1,
- "list_del corruption, %px->next is LIST_POISON1 (%px)\n",
+ "list_del corruption: %px->next is LIST_POISON1 (%px)\n",
entry, LIST_POISON1) ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev == LIST_POISON2,
- "list_del corruption, %px->prev is LIST_POISON2 (%px)\n",
+ "list_del corruption: %px->prev is LIST_POISON2 (%px)\n",
entry, LIST_POISON2) ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev->next != entry,
- "list_del corruption. prev->next should be %px, but was %px\n",
+ "list_del corruption: prev->next should be %px, but was %px\n",
entry, prev->next) ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next->prev != entry,
- "list_del corruption. next->prev should be %px, but was %px\n",
+ "list_del corruption: next->prev should be %px, but was %px\n",
entry, next->prev))
return false;
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ bool __hlist_bl_add_head_valid(struct hlist_bl_node *new,
unsigned long nlock = (unsigned long)new & LIST_BL_LOCKMASK;
if (CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(nlock,
- "hlist_bl_add_head: node is locked\n") ||
+ "hlist_bl_add_head corruption: node is locked\n") ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(hlock != LIST_BL_LOCKMASK,
"hlist_bl_add_head: head is unlocked\n"))
return false;
@@ -222,10 +222,10 @@ bool __hlist_bl_del_valid(struct hlist_bl_node *node)
if (CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(nlock,
"hlist_bl_del corruption: node is locked") ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next == LIST_POISON1,
- "hlist_bl_del corruption, %px->next is LIST_POISON1 (%px)\n",
+ "hlist_bl_del corruption: %px->next is LIST_POISON1 (%px)\n",
node, LIST_POISON1) ||
CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(node->pprev == LIST_POISON2,
- "hlist_bl_del corruption, %px->pprev is LIST_POISON2 (%px)\n",
+ "hlist_bl_del corruption: %px->pprev is LIST_POISON2 (%px)\n",
node, LIST_POISON2))
return false;
--
2.20.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
