linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] iio: Prefer octal over symbolic permissions.

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: <083c936b74c2a2aef678e7b89be22e00c596144f.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Sat, 28 May 2022 10:36:57 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Joe Simmons-Talbott <joetalbott@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] iio: Prefer octal over symbolic permissions.

On Sat, 2022-05-28 at 18:34 +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 27 May 2022 14:56:52 -0400
> Joe Simmons-Talbott <joetalbott@...il.com> wrote:
> > As reported by checkpatch.pl use ocatl permissions rather than symbolic
> > permissions.
[]
> Why the resend?  Given change of description, I'm guessing this is v2
> because of feedback on a similar patch elsewhere. If so, please
> put the version number in the patch log and provide a changelog
> below the ---
> 
> Hmm. I guess I don't really mind cleaning this up though it is
> some churn in core code which is usually something we try to avoid
> for fairly trivial style reasons.
> 
> One request inline (though I suspect it applies in several places,
> I just haven't checked ;)
[]
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/industrialio-buffer.c b/drivers/iio/industrialio-buffer.c
[]
> > @@ -1391,17 +1391,17 @@ static ssize_t direction_show(struct device *dev,
> >  	}
> >  }
> >  
> > -static DEVICE_ATTR(length, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, iio_buffer_read_length,
> > +static DEVICE_ATTR(length, 0644, iio_buffer_read_length,
> >  		   iio_buffer_write_length);
> >  static struct device_attribute dev_attr_length_ro = __ATTR(length,
> > -	S_IRUGO, iio_buffer_read_length, NULL);
> > -static DEVICE_ATTR(enable, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR,
> > +	0444, iio_buffer_read_length, NULL);
> > +static DEVICE_ATTR(enable, 0644,
> >  		   iio_buffer_show_enable, iio_buffer_store_enable);
> > -static DEVICE_ATTR(watermark, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR,
> > +static DEVICE_ATTR(watermark, 0644,
> >  		   iio_buffer_show_watermark, iio_buffer_store_watermark);
> >  static struct device_attribute dev_attr_watermark_ro = __ATTR(watermark,
> > -	S_IRUGO, iio_buffer_show_watermark, NULL);
> > -static DEVICE_ATTR(data_available, S_IRUGO,
> > +	0444, iio_buffer_show_watermark, NULL);
> > +static DEVICE_ATTR(data_available, 0444,
> >  		iio_dma_show_data_available, NULL);
> 
> a side effect of this change a slight shortening of how long the above
> two lines will be if combined into one.  It's now sub 80 chars
> I think, so please make them a single line.  Also check for similar
> cases elsewhere.

another possibility it to rename the function to <var>_show and change

	static DEVICE_ATTR(foo, 0444, <var>, NULL)
to
	static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(<var>)

and also use

DEVICE_ATTR_RW

with appropriate function renaming where feasible.