linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] sysfs: Fix is_visible() support for binary attributes

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:	Tue, 08 Sep 2015 18:10:16 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Emilio López <emilio.lopez@...labora.co.uk>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:	olof@...om.net, kgene@...nel.org, k.kozlowski@...sung.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sysfs: Fix is_visible() support for binary attributes

Hi Emilio,

On 09/08/2015 05:51 PM, Emilio López wrote:
> Hi Greg & Guenter,
>
[ ... ]
>>>>
>>>> Unless I am missing something, this is not explained anywhere, but it is
>>>> not entirely trivial to understand. I think it should be documented.
>
> I agree. I couldn't find any mention of what this int was supposed to be by looking at Documentation/ (is_visible is not even mentioned :/) or include/linux/sysfs.h. Once we settle on something I'll document it before sending a v2.
>
In the include file ? No strong preference, though.

> By the way, I wrote a quick coccinelle script to match is_visible() users which reference the index (included below), and it found references to drivers which do not seem to use any binary attributes, so I believe changing the index meaning shouldn't be an issue.
>
Good.

>>> I agree, make i the number of the bin attribute and that should solve
>>> this issue.
>>>
>> No, that would conflict with the "normal" use of is_visible for non-binary
>> attributes, and make the index all but useless, since the is_visible function
>> would have to search through all the attributes anyway to figure out which one
>> is being checked.
>
> Yeah, using the same indexes would be somewhat pointless, although not many seem to be using it anyway (only 14 files matched). Others seem to be comparing the attr* instead. An alternative would be to use negative indexes for binary attributes and positive indexes for normal attributes.
>
... and I probably wrote or reviewed a significant percentage of those ;-).

Using negative numbers for binary attributes is an interesting idea.
Kind of unusual, though. Greg, any thoughts on that ?

Guenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/