Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] procfs: use an enum for possible hidepid values
From: Djalal Harouni
Date: Wed Feb 15 2017 - 03:57:29 EST
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Andrew Morton
> 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.
> Djalal, I converted your acked-by into a signed-off-by, as described in
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches (soon to become
Thank you Andrew!