Re: [PATCH] staging: gasket: replace symbolic permissions

[Rodolfo C Villordo]

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:32:24AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 08:27:14AM +0000, Rodolfo C Villordo wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 09:47:50AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 12:52:40AM +0000, Rodolfo C. Villordo wrote:
> > > > WARNING: Symbolic permissions 'S_IRUGO' are not preferred. Consider using octal permissions '0444'.
> > > > +               .attr = __ATTR(_name, S_IRUGO, _show_function, NULL),          \
> > > > warning detected by checkpatch.pl
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rodolfo C. Villordo <rodolfovillordo@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_sysfs.h | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_sysfs.h b/drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_sysfs.h
> > > > index ab5aa351d555..d5e167dfbe76 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_sysfs.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_sysfs.h
> > > > @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ struct gasket_sysfs_attribute {
> > > >  
> > > >  #define GASKET_SYSFS_RO(_name, _show_function, _attr_type)                     \
> > > >  	{                                                                      \
> > > > -		.attr = __ATTR(_name, S_IRUGO, _show_function, NULL),          \
> > > > +		.attr = __ATTR(_name, 0444, _show_function, NULL),          \
> > > 
> > > What about using __ATTR_RO() instead?
> > > 
> > 
> > I'm not sure if __ATTR_RO() is a good match here. The
> > GASKET_SYSFS_RO() is invoked with different show functions across the
> > code. These functions don't follow the name pattern attr_name_show
> > used in __ATTR_RO(). Please correct me if I misunderstood anything.
> > 
> > ### from include/linux/sysfs.h ###
> > #define __ATTR_RO(_name) {                                              \
> >         .attr   = { .name = __stringify(_name), .mode = 0444 },         \
> >         .show   = _name##_show,                                         \
> > }
> > ###
> > 
> > ### macro usage across the driver: ###
> > $ grep GASKET_SYSFS_RO drivers/staging/gasket/*
> > drivers/staging/gasket/apex_driver.c:   GASKET_SYSFS_RO(node_0_page_table_entries, sysfs_show,
> > drivers/staging/gasket/apex_driver.c:   GASKET_SYSFS_RO(node_0_simple_page_table_entries, sysfs_show,
> > drivers/staging/gasket/apex_driver.c:   GASKET_SYSFS_RO(node_0_num_mapped_pages, sysfs_show,
> > drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c:   GASKET_SYSFS_RO(bar_offsets, gasket_sysfs_data_show, ATTR_BAR_OFFSETS),
> > drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c:   GASKET_SYSFS_RO(bar_sizes, gasket_sysfs_data_show, ATTR_BAR_SIZES),
> > drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c:   GASKET_SYSFS_RO(driver_version, gasket_sysfs_data_show,
> > drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c:   GASKET_SYSFS_RO(framework_version, gasket_sysfs_data_show,
> > drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c:   GASKET_SYSFS_RO(device_type, gasket_sysfs_data_show, ATTR_DEVICE_TYPE),
> > drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c:   GASKET_SYSFS_RO(revision, gasket_sysfs_data_show,
> > drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c:   GASKET_SYSFS_RO(pci_address, gasket_sysfs_data_show, ATTR_PCI_ADDRESS),
> > drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c:   GASKET_SYSFS_RO(status, gasket_sysfs_data_show, ATTR_STATUS),
> > drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c:   GASKET_SYSFS_RO(is_device_owned, gasket_sysfs_data_show,
> > drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c:   GASKET_SYSFS_RO(device_owner, gasket_sysfs_data_show,
> > drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c:   GASKET_SYSFS_RO(write_open_count, gasket_sysfs_data_show,
> > drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c:   GASKET_SYSFS_RO(reset_count, gasket_sysfs_data_show, ATTR_RESET_COUNT),
> > drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c:   GASKET_SYSFS_RO(user_mem_ranges, gasket_sysfs_data_show,
> > drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_interrupt.c:      GASKET_SYSFS_RO(interrupt_counts, interrupt_sysfs_show,
> > ###
> 
> Ugh, you are right, that's a mess.  Your original patch is fine, can you
> resend it and say in the changelog why it's not ok to use __ATTR_RO()?
> 
Sure, doing it now.

Thanks

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h