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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Tue,  2 Aug 2016 19:56:28 +0800
From:	Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>
To:	maier@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
	heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	m.chehab@...sung.com, pawel@...iak.com, m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
	kyungmin.park@...sung.com, k.kozlowski@...sung.com
Cc:	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	chuansheng.liu@...el.com, baolex.ni@...el.com
Subject: [PATCH 0901/1285] 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>
---
 drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_fc.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_fc.c b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_fc.c
index 237688a..83741e2 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_fc.c
+++ b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_fc.c
@@ -28,17 +28,17 @@ static u32 zfcp_fc_rscn_range_mask[] = {
 };
 
 static bool no_auto_port_rescan;
-module_param_named(no_auto_port_rescan, no_auto_port_rescan, bool, 0600);
+module_param_named(no_auto_port_rescan, no_auto_port_rescan, bool, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(no_auto_port_rescan,
 		 "no automatic port_rescan (default off)");
 
 static unsigned int port_scan_backoff = 500;
-module_param(port_scan_backoff, uint, 0600);
+module_param(port_scan_backoff, uint, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(port_scan_backoff,
 	"upper limit of port scan random backoff in msecs (default 500)");
 
 static unsigned int port_scan_ratelimit = 60000;
-module_param(port_scan_ratelimit, uint, 0600);
+module_param(port_scan_ratelimit, uint, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(port_scan_ratelimit,
 	"minimum interval between port scans in msecs (default 60000)");
 
-- 
2.9.2

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ