linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't complain on module

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:   Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:20:29 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't complain on module_param(foo, bar, 0)

On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 00:10 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:05 AM, Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
> > The following code snippet:
> > 
> >     module_param(writeable, bool, 0);
> > 
> > yields this warning:
> > 
> >     ERROR: Use 4 digit octal (0777) not decimal permissions
> >     #390: FILE: drivers/mtd/spi-nor/intel-spi.c:143:
> >     +module_param(writeable, bool, 0);
> >     total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1006 lines checked
> > 
> > But 0000 is no easier to read than 0, and module_param() even
> > specifically refers to 0.
> 
> While this is all correct, the question is why we disallow to read
> back on those parameters?

why disallow root to read-back any parameter?