Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:25:09 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] afs: proc cells and rootcell are writeable |
| |
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > * 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'?
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__)
With the advantage of separating the groups better and reducing the number of constants needed.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |