linux-kernel - Re: [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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 2 Aug 2016 09:25:10 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, josh@...htriplett.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, 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 1073/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with
 macro

On Tue,  2 Aug 2016 20:13:58 +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/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;
>