Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:19:28 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] afs: proc cells and rootcell are writeable |
| |
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:27 AM, David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> 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
etc.
or something similar, more or less matching the output of 'ls -l'?
That would also make security bugs in this area apparent at first sight. The number of people who can recognize during review that PERM_rw__w__w is probably unwise is probably two orders of magnitude than those who can interpret octal 0622 at a glance.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |