On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 09:13:12AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:44:01AM -0500, Vivien Didelot wrote: > > Hi Guenter, > > > [ ... ] > > > > > Anyway, my goal was to keep things simple. Taking some bits from the > > > default > > > and others from the return value of the is_visible function isn't simple, > > > even more so since your code would require the is_visible function to mask > > > out SYSFS_PREALLOC to avoid the warning. > > > > While I'm still not sure about the consequences of flipping this > > SYSFS_PREALLOC > > bit at runtime, I do agree with your goal. > > > > Then to keep it simple, the scope of is_visible could be limited to any bit > > allowed at attribute declaration (using *_ATTR* macros). The compile-time > > check > > macro VERIFY_OCTAL_PERMISSIONS() allows any bit but S_IWOTH. The scope can > > be > > SYSFS_PREALLOC | 0775. (or 0664 if we want to avoid executables as well.) > > > > [ This will prevent some follow-up patches "avoid world-writable sysfs > > files". > > In the future, we may want a runtime equivalent of > > VERIFY_OCTAL_PERMISSIONS. ] > > > 0775 and 0664 are both fine with me, with a preference for 0664. Before I > resubmit - Greg, any preference from your side ?
I don't have the time to look at them this week, so feel free to fix up what you know about and resend and I will get to them as soon as I can. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/