linux-kernel - [PATCH 1073/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue,  2 Aug 2016 20:13:58 +0800
From:	Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, josh@...htriplett.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
	jiangshanlai@...il.com, m.chehab@...sung.com,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
	kyungmin.park@...sung.com, k.kozlowski@...sung.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chuansheng.liu@...el.com,
	baolex.ni@...el.com, mhocko@...e.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	vkuznets@...hat.com, pmladek@...e.com, tj@...nel.org,
	jpoimboe@...hat.com
Subject: [PATCH 1073/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

I find that the developers often just specified the numeric value
when calling a macro which is defined with a parameter for access permission.
As we know, these numeric value for access permission have had the corresponding macro,
and that using macro can improve the robustness and readability of the code,
thus, I suggest replacing the numeric parameter with the macro.

Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>
---
 kernel/rcu/update.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/update.c b/kernel/rcu/update.c
index 3e888cd..ee6df8e 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/update.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/update.c
@@ -449,8 +449,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(do_trace_rcu_torture_read);
 int rcu_cpu_stall_suppress __read_mostly; /* 1 = suppress stall warnings. */
 static int rcu_cpu_stall_timeout __read_mostly = CONFIG_RCU_CPU_STALL_TIMEOUT;
 
-module_param(rcu_cpu_stall_suppress, int, 0644);
-module_param(rcu_cpu_stall_timeout, int, 0644);
+module_param(rcu_cpu_stall_suppress, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
+module_param(rcu_cpu_stall_timeout, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
 
 int rcu_jiffies_till_stall_check(void)
 {
@@ -525,7 +525,7 @@ DEFINE_SRCU(tasks_rcu_exit_srcu);
 
 /* Control stall timeouts.  Disable with <= 0, otherwise jiffies till stall. */
 static int rcu_task_stall_timeout __read_mostly = HZ * 60 * 10;
-module_param(rcu_task_stall_timeout, int, 0644);
+module_param(rcu_task_stall_timeout, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
 
 static void rcu_spawn_tasks_kthread(void);
 
@@ -820,9 +820,9 @@ static bool rcu_self_test;
 static bool rcu_self_test_bh;
 static bool rcu_self_test_sched;
 
-module_param(rcu_self_test, bool, 0444);
-module_param(rcu_self_test_bh, bool, 0444);
-module_param(rcu_self_test_sched, bool, 0444);
+module_param(rcu_self_test, bool, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
+module_param(rcu_self_test_bh, bool, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
+module_param(rcu_self_test_sched, bool, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
 
 static int rcu_self_test_counter;
 
-- 
2.9.2