Re: [patch 1/2] ptrace, security: rename ptrace_may_access =>ptrace_access_check

[Ingo Molnar]

* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 7 May 2009 11:49:47 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > The ptrace_may_access() methods are named confusingly - some 
> > variants return a bool, while the security subsystem methods have a 
> > retval convention.
> > 
> > Rename it to ptrace_access_check, to reduce the confusion factor. A 
> > followup patch eliminates the bool usage.
> 
> s/may_access/access_check/ is a poor change.  The new name conveys 
> less information than the old one.
> 
> It's quite clear what the return value from "may_access" means.  

it isnt clear at all. In fact there's two variants: one that returns 
'int' and one that returns 'bool' - the two have inverted values.

> It's less clear what the return value from a function called 
> "access_check" means.
>
> Switching to something like ptrace_task_accessible() or 
> ptrace_may_access_task() would be better.
> 
> This happens quite often.  The string "check" in the name of a 
> predicate function is a red flag.

I disagree. To repeat the argument i made in this thread, the 'may' 
suggests/attracts a logical value, i.e. yes or no, or boolean. But 
that goes against the desire of actual call sites wanting a Linux 
retval.

I.e. any function name that can be plain-English answered with: 
'yes' or 'no' is a red flag for a retval function.

You cannot answer ptrace_access_check() with 'yes' or 'no'. You 
could if it was ptrace_access_ok() or ptrace_may_access.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/