linux-kernel - [PATCH 1077/1285] 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20160802121421.21921-1-baolex.ni@intel.com>
Date:	Tue,  2 Aug 2016 20:14:21 +0800
From:	Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>
To:	rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com,
	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
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chuansheng.liu@...el.com,
	baolex.ni@...el.com, mhocko@...e.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	vkuznets@...hat.com, pmladek@...e.com, tj@...nel.org,
	jpoimboe@...hat.com
Subject: [PATCH 1077/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

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>
---
 kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c | 12 ++++++------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c
index 6df9a83..c7a495af1 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/ring_buffer_benchmark.c
@@ -33,11 +33,11 @@ static struct task_struct *consumer;
 static unsigned long read;
 
 static unsigned int disable_reader;
-module_param(disable_reader, uint, 0644);
+module_param(disable_reader, uint, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_reader, "only run producer");
 
 static unsigned int write_iteration = 50;
-module_param(write_iteration, uint, 0644);
+module_param(write_iteration, uint, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(write_iteration, "# of writes between timestamp readings");
 
 static int producer_nice = MAX_NICE;
@@ -46,16 +46,16 @@ static int consumer_nice = MAX_NICE;
 static int producer_fifo = -1;
 static int consumer_fifo = -1;
 
-module_param(producer_nice, int, 0644);
+module_param(producer_nice, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(producer_nice, "nice prio for producer");
 
-module_param(consumer_nice, int, 0644);
+module_param(consumer_nice, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(consumer_nice, "nice prio for consumer");
 
-module_param(producer_fifo, int, 0644);
+module_param(producer_fifo, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(producer_fifo, "fifo prio for producer");
 
-module_param(consumer_fifo, int, 0644);
+module_param(consumer_fifo, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(consumer_fifo, "fifo prio for consumer");
 
 static int read_events;
-- 
2.9.2