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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 20:58:50 -0700 From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> Cc: Emilio López <emilio.lopez@...labora.co.uk>, 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 On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 06:10:16PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > 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 ? Ick, no, that's a mess, maybe we just could drop the index alltogether? thanks, greg k-h -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists