Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] procfs: use an enum for possible hidepid values

[Djalal Harouni]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:16:30 -0800 Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > From: Lafcadio Wluiki <wluikil@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > Previously, the hidepid parameter was checked by comparing literal
>> > integers 0, 1, 2. Let's add a proper enum for this, to make the checking
>> > more expressive:
>> >
>> >         0 ___ HIDEPID_OFF
>> >         1 ___ HIDEPID_NO_ACCESS
>> >         2 ___ HIDEPID_INVISIBLE
>> >
>> > This changes the internal labelling only, the userspace-facing interface
>> > remains unmodified, and still works with literal integers 0, 1, 2.
>> >
>> > No functional changes.
>> >
>> > Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Acked-by: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > Signed-off-by: Lafcadio Wluiki <wluikil@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Andrew, can you take this? It's a sensible cleanup to drop literals in
>> favor of defines.
>
> Sure.
>
> Djalal, I converted your acked-by into a signed-off-by, as described in
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches (soon to become
> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst).

Thank you Andrew!

-- 
tixxdz