linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't require octal permissions for "0"

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1512946606.26342.21.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:56:46 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: don't require octal permissions for "0"

On Sun, 2017-12-10 at 15:04 +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> If the permission value is 0, don't raise the NON_OCTAL_PERMISSIONS
> error. There's no possibility of an error if there are no permissions.

Hi Bartosz

This response below is the same as another email thread

-------------

Personally, I prefer 4 digit octal in most cases as it
shows the coder knows that the argument is a permissions
use and not just some generic 0.

There are not many uses of 0 for permissions outside of
module_param*.

I suppose all the variants of module_param calls, as a
0 there is specifically a "not to appear in sysfs" flag,
could or should be excluded from that octal test.