linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0984/1285] 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 03 Aug 2016 10:30:52 +0200
From:	Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>
To:	Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, k.kozlowski@...sung.com,
	kyungmin.park@...sung.com, m.chehab@...sung.com,
	m.szyprowski@...sung.com, peter.chen@...escale.com,
	deepa.kernel@...il.com, baolex.ni@...el.com,
	chuansheng.liu@...el.com, mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com,
	mina86@...a86.com, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0984/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

On Tue, 2016-08-02 at 16:54 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com> writes:
> 
> > 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/usb/misc/usbtest.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c b/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c
> > index 6b978f0..5e81dc3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c
> > @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
> >  /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
> >  
> >  static int override_alt = -1;
> > -module_param_named(alt, override_alt, int, 0644);
> > +module_param_named(alt, override_alt, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
> 
> line too long. You need to run this series through scripts/checkpatch.pl
> 

Before we think about that, the basic question whether

S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH

is clearer and easier to read than

0644

must be decided. I would saz no, it is not.

	Regards
		Oliver