linux-kernel - RE: RFC: Serial port DTR/RTS

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: <GV2PR05MB1194103525B30DCC4D18D59EE83CAA@GV2PR05MB11941.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 10:26:58 +0000
From: Maarten Brock <Maarten.Brock@...ls.nl>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, "linux-serial@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-api@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: RFC: Serial port DTR/RTS - O_<something>

> > A new open flag "O_DO_NOT_TOUCH_ANYTHING" might be
> > the simplest?
> >
> 
> Okay, to I'm going to toss out a couple suggestions for naming:
> 
> 	O_(PRE|FOR|N|NO)?(INIT|CONFIG|START)(DEV|HW|IO)?
> 	O_(NO?RESET|PREPARE)(DEV|HW|IO)?
> 	O_NO?TOUCH
> 	O_NYET ("not yet")
> 
> I think my personal preference at the moment is either O_NYET or O_PRECONFIG
> or O_NYET; although it is perhaps a bit more "use case centric" than "what
> actual effect it has" I think it might be clearer.  A -DEV, -HW or -IO suffix
> would seem to needlessly preclude it being used for future similar use cases
> for files that are not device nodes.
> 
> O_NYET ("not yet") is kind of attractive because it has some geekish smirk
> value, doesn't have "obvious enough" meaning that if you don't know what it
> does you'll guess rather than looking it up, but once you know you are not
> going to forget it!  There is even precedent: USB 2 already has the NYET
> packet type meaning just "not yet".  The more I'm thinking about it the more
> am starting to like it...

Personally, I don't much like the O_NYET as it seems to describe not to open
the device.

> Many of the other combinations have the problem of seeming to do the opposite
> of what the used wants in some use cases; it seems rather odd to open a device
> node that you are intending to configure with "O_NOCONFIG".

Don't like this one either.

> On the other
> hand, "O_CONFIG" might be a valid indication of the intent (like O_RDONLY or
> O_RDWR are indicator of intent), but also has the implication that it *will*
> cause the device to configure itself.  It also would seem to imply that the
> resulting file descriptor can *only* be used for that purpose.

I do like the O_CONFIG or O_FORCONFIG names.
I also like O_PREINIT or O_PRESTART.

Kind Regards,
Maarten