On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:57:19AM -0400, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Could you please stop converting to kstrtobool()? > > > > commit a81a5a17d44b26521fb1199f8ccf27f4af337a67 > > Author: Kees Cook <[email protected]> > > Date: Thu Mar 17 14:22:57 2016 -0700 > > > > lib: add "on"/"off" support to kstrtobool > > > > Especially after doing patches like this? > > > > How on earth this was accepted? > > > > Now the kernel is supposed to know about every pair of words > > with the opposite meaning and accept them. > > > > If kstrtobool() is ever going to be added it should accept > > only '0' and '1' characters because kernel is not there > > to second guess (same logic applies to whitespace trimming > > for proc/sysfs files). > > > > Another point is that in C/C++ any value other than 0 > > is true in for bool but kstrtobool() doesn't accept, say '2' > > as true. This is why it wasn't added in the first place. > > > > It is amazing to see how people think that every 2 common > > lines of code should be generalized and pushed into lib/. > > There were plenty of common use-cases of the 0/1/no/yes/off/on usage.
The mistake was to allow y/n/Y/N/yes/no/on/off in the first place. Supporting anything but 0/1 by core code legitimizes those usages. But since y/n/Y/N/... can't be removed, it is a mistake to move them to core code, let it rot. > I was specifically asked to use a common function, and this seemed > like the cleanest approach. kstrtobool already took y/n, and hasn't > ever handled "2" to mean "true", and is clearly documented. There's no > reason it couldn't be adjusted to do that, though. Other things: * "!s" check, other functions don't do that, * doesn't handle \n, * can't spell "off" right, * no tests,
