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  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:   Fri, 24 Feb 2017 00:10:15 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't complain on module_param(foo, bar, 0)

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:05 AM, Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
> The following code snippet:
>
>     module_param(writeable, bool, 0);
>
> yields this warning:
>
>     ERROR: Use 4 digit octal (0777) not decimal permissions
>     #390: FILE: drivers/mtd/spi-nor/intel-spi.c:143:
>     +module_param(writeable, bool, 0);
>     total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1006 lines checked
>
> But 0000 is no easier to read than 0, and module_param() even
> specifically refers to 0.

While this is all correct, the question is why we disallow to read
back on those parameters?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

Powered by blists - more mailing lists