Re: [PATCH 1115/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

Baole Ni [off-list ref] writes:

I find that the developers often just specified the numeric value
when calling a macro which is defined with a parameter for access permission.
As we know, these numeric value for access permission have had the corresponding macro,
and that using macro can improve the robustness and readability of the code,
thus, I suggest replacing the numeric parameter with the macro.

*Scratches my head*  The permissions are not 0444 below.
With 1285 patches I wonder how many typos you may have made.

Was this generated by a script?

Eric

On Tue 2016-08-02 09:29:27, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

Baole Ni [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I find that the developers often just specified the numeric value
when calling a macro which is defined with a parameter for access permission.
As we know, these numeric value for access permission have had the corresponding macro,
and that using macro can improve the robustness and readability of the code,
thus, I suggest replacing the numeric parameter with the macro.

*Scratches my head*  The permissions are not 0444 below.
With 1285 patches I wonder how many typos you may have made.

Was this generated by a script?

I think he got it right:

/usr/include/linux/stat.h:#define S_IRUSR 00400

But that does not make me like the series. And yes, hiding backdoor in
one of those would be way too easy...

									Pavel

Eric

quoted

Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <redacted>
---
 net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_core.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_core.c b/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_core.c
index a748b0c..b6c060d3 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_core.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_core.c

@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ static inline struct ip_set_net *ip_set_pernet(struct net *net)
 
 static unsigned int max_sets;
 
-module_param(max_sets, int, 0600);
+module_param(max_sets, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(max_sets, "maximal number of sets");
 MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
 MODULE_AUTHOR("Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu>");

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

From: Pavel Machek <redacted>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 19:47:33 +0200

But that does not make me like the series. And yes, hiding backdoor
in one of those would be way too easy...

This is one of the worst patch series submissions in history.
At vger.kernel.org postmaster I just spent 45 minutes dealing
with the fallout.

1200+ patches all at once, unacceptable.

Every patch having the same Subject line text, unacceptable.

Triggering rate limiting bounces on %50+ of all lkml recipients,
unacceptable.

This is why you don't spam lists with a thousand patches.

If this is going to be properly submitted, it must be done in
reasonable, bite size, pieces of 10 to 15 patches at a time.