linux-kernel - [PATCH 0926/1285] 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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20160802115845.11735-1-baolex.ni@intel.com>
Date:	Tue,  2 Aug 2016 19:58:45 +0800
From:	Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>
To:	oleg.drokin@...el.com, andreas.dilger@...el.com,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	martin.petersen@...cle.com, m.chehab@...sung.com, pawel@...iak.com,
	m.szyprowski@...sung.com, kyungmin.park@...sung.com,
	k.kozlowski@...sung.com
Cc:	lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jsimmons@...radead.org,
	amitoj1606@...il.com, shraddha.6596@...il.com,
	chuansheng.liu@...el.com, baolex.ni@...el.com,
	jinshan.xiong@...el.com
Subject: [PATCH 0926/1285] 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>
---
 drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/libcfs/hash.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/libcfs/hash.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/libcfs/hash.c
index cc45ed8..f4454d0 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/libcfs/hash.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/libcfs/hash.c
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@
 
 #if CFS_HASH_DEBUG_LEVEL >= CFS_HASH_DEBUG_1
 static unsigned int warn_on_depth = 8;
-module_param(warn_on_depth, uint, 0644);
+module_param(warn_on_depth, uint, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(warn_on_depth, "warning when hash depth is high.");
 #endif
 
-- 
2.9.2