Re: [PATCH] afs: proc cells and rootcell are writeable

[Ingo Molnar]

* Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > * Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:27 AM, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> > > -       p = proc_create("cells", 0, proc_afs, &afs_proc_cells_fops);
> >> >> > > +       p = proc_create("cells", S_IFREG | S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, proc_afs, &afs_proc_cells_fops);
> >> >> > > -       p = proc_create("rootcell", 0, proc_afs, &afs_proc_rootcell_fops);
> >> >> > > +       p = proc_create("rootcell", S_IFREG | S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, proc_afs, &afs_proc_rootcell_fops);
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So the S_IFREG isn't necessary.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And quite frankly, I personally think S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR is _less_
> >> >> > readable than 0644. It's damn hard to parse those random letter
> >> >> > combinations, and at least I have to really think about it, in a way
> >> >> > that the octal representation does *not* make me go "I have to think
> >> >> > about that".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So my personal preference would be to just see that simple 0644 in
> >> >> > proc_create. Hmm?
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps we could also generate the most common variants as:
> >> >>
> >> >>  #define PERM__rw_r__r__              0644
> >> >>  #define PERM__r________              0400
> >> >>  #define PERM__r__r__r__              0444
> >> >>  #define PERM__r_xr_xr_x              0555
> >>
> >> I like it (also without the PERM prefix, cfr. Alexey's old patch).
> >>
> >> >> or something similar, more or less matching the output of 'ls -l'?
> >> >
> >> > Another variant of this would be to do the following macro:
> >> >
> >> >         PERM(R_X, R_X, R_X)
> >> >         PERM(R__, R__, R__)
> >> >         PERM(RW_, R__, R__)
> >>
> >> IMHO, this is again less outstanding.
> >>
> >> > With the advantage of separating the groups better and reducing the
> >> > number of constants needed.
> >>
> >> Only a limited number of combinations is in active use, right?
> >
> > Correct - and in fact that kind of limitation is also a security
> > feature: using patterns _outside_ of the typical, already defined
> > group of permission patterns would in itself be a 'is that really
> > justified?' red flag during review.
> 
> Then Joe (CCed :-) can write a checkpatch rule to flag all new users of the
> I_S[RWX}* flags..,

I'd also flag raw octal use: they are easily mixed up and only a 
relatively small group of people will read them as-is, most other 
kernel/Linux people will only recognize anomalies in the rwxrwxrwx 
notation.

So the number of reviewers who might spot bugs, either during patch 
submission or later on reading the code increases.

Thanks,

	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/