linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1077/1285] 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 09:26:01 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>
Cc:	mingo@...hat.com, 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,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chuansheng.liu@...el.com,
	mhocko@...e.com, tglx@...utronix.de, vkuznets@...hat.com,
	pmladek@...e.com, tj@...nel.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1077/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with
 macro

On Tue,  2 Aug 2016 20:14:21 +0800
Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com> 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.
> 

NACK!

I find 0444 more readable than S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH.

-- Steve

> Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>
> ---
>  kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c
> index 6df9a83..c7a495af1 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c
> @@ -33,11 +33,11 @@ static struct task_struct *consumer;
>  static unsigned long read;
>  
>  static unsigned int disable_reader;
> -module_param(disable_reader, uint, 0644);
> +module_param(disable_reader, uint, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_reader, "only run producer");
>  
>  static unsigned int write_iteration = 50;
> -module_param(write_iteration, uint, 0644);
> +module_param(write_iteration, uint, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(write_iteration, "# of writes between timestamp readings");
>  
>  static int producer_nice = MAX_NICE;
> @@ -46,16 +46,16 @@ static int consumer_nice = MAX_NICE;
>  static int producer_fifo = -1;
>  static int consumer_fifo = -1;
>  
> -module_param(producer_nice, int, 0644);
> +module_param(producer_nice, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(producer_nice, "nice prio for producer");
>  
> -module_param(consumer_nice, int, 0644);
> +module_param(consumer_nice, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(consumer_nice, "nice prio for consumer");
>  
> -module_param(producer_fifo, int, 0644);
> +module_param(producer_fifo, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(producer_fifo, "fifo prio for producer");
>  
> -module_param(consumer_fifo, int, 0644);
> +module_param(consumer_fifo, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(consumer_fifo, "fifo prio for consumer");
>  
>  static int read_events;