linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0032/1285] 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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 2 Aug 2016 14:10:58 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>
Cc:	tony.luck@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chuansheng.liu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0032/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

First of all,

what is that flood of patches and why am I on CC on so many, even if I
don't have anything to do with the code most of them touch? Have you
heard of get_maintainer.pl?

Then, I'd never do all that "work" that if I were you.

Then, your patch Subject is the *same* on every patch. Not good.

Ditto for the commit message but I guess one can do only so many
variations of the same thing.

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 06:35:51PM +0800, Baole Ni wrote:
> 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.

I don't think this is a valid argument - I can understand 0644 much
faster than the macros but maybe this is just me...

> Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>

This SOB chain is wrong. Why are there two people doing a trivial patch?

> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> index 92e5e37..95b3028 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c
> @@ -2345,10 +2345,10 @@ static ssize_t store_int_with_restart(struct device *s,
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> -static DEVICE_ATTR(trigger, 0644, show_trigger, set_trigger);
> -static DEVICE_INT_ATTR(tolerant, 0644, mca_cfg.tolerant);
> -static DEVICE_INT_ATTR(monarch_timeout, 0644, mca_cfg.monarch_timeout);
> -static DEVICE_BOOL_ATTR(dont_log_ce, 0644, mca_cfg.dont_log_ce);
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(trigger, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, show_trigger, set_trigger);
> +static DEVICE_INT_ATTR(tolerant, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, mca_cfg.tolerant);
> +static DEVICE_INT_ATTR(monarch_timeout, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, mca_cfg.monarch_timeout);
> +static DEVICE_BOOL_ATTR(dont_log_ce, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, mca_cfg.dont_log_ce);

So no, I won't take this senseless churn - it doesn't fix or improve
anything IMO.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--