linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0875/1285] 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20160802154241.GA3385@osiris>
Date:	Tue, 2 Aug 2016 17:42:41 +0200
From:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To:	Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>
Cc:	wein@...ibm.com, stefan.haberland@...ibm.com,
	schwidefsky@...ibm.com, dwmw2@...radead.org, m.chehab@...sung.com,
	pawel@...iak.com, m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
	kyungmin.park@...sung.com, k.kozlowski@...sung.com,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	chuansheng.liu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0875/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 07:54:12PM +0800, Baole Ni wrote:
> 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/s390/block/dasd_devmap.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/block/dasd_devmap.c b/drivers/s390/block/dasd_devmap.c
> index 3cdbce4..a70a159 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/block/dasd_devmap.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/block/dasd_devmap.c
> @@ -747,7 +747,7 @@ static ssize_t dasd_ff_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
>  	return count;
>  }
> 
> -static DEVICE_ATTR(failfast, 0644, dasd_ff_show, dasd_ff_store);
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(failfast, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, dasd_ff_show, dasd_ff_store);

Please consider all patches NACK'ed that touch s390 code, for the same
reasons that have been outlined by several other people.