linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2-next 1/3] sysctl/sysrq: Remove __sysrq

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <9ce5cadb-5e00-a9cf-c22d-92f077141efa@arista.com>
Date:   Sun, 23 Feb 2020 12:10:26 +0000
From:   Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Vasiliy Khoruzhick <vasilykh@...sta.com>,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2-next 1/3] sysctl/sysrq: Remove __sysrq_enabled copy



On 2/23/20 12:08 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> 
> On 1/15/20 12:36 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 05:19:10PM +0000, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> [..]
>>> +int sysrq_get_mask(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	if (sysrq_always_enabled)
>>> +		return 1;
>>> +	return sysrq_enabled;
>>> +}
>>
>> Naming is hard.  And this name is really hard to understand.
> 
> Agree.
> 
> 
>> Traditionally get/put are used for incrementing reference counts.  You
>> don't have a sysrq_put_mask() call, right?  :)
> 
> Yes, fair point
> 
> 
>> I think what you want this function to do is, "is sysrq enabled right
>> now" (hint, it's a global function, add kernel-doc to it so we know what
>> it does...).  If so, it should maybe be something like:
>>
>> 	bool sysrq_is_enabled(void);
>>
>> which to me makes more sense.
> 
> Err, not exactly: there is a function for that which is sysrq_on().
> But for sysctl the value of the mask (or 1 for always_enabled) is
> actually needed to show a proper value back to the userspace reader.

I'll call it sysrq_mask(), add the kernel-doc to it in v3.

Thanks again,
          Dmitry