On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 02:21:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:46 PM Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > +/* definitions for hide_pid field */
> > +enum {
> > + HIDEPID_OFF = 0,
> > + HIDEPID_NO_ACCESS = 1,
> > + HIDEPID_INVISIBLE = 2,
> > +};
>
> Should this enum be named...
>
> > struct proc_fs_info {
> > struct pid_namespace *pid_ns;
> > struct dentry *proc_self; /* For /proc/self */
> > struct dentry *proc_thread_self; /* For /proc/thread-self */
> > + kgid_t pid_gid;
> > + int hide_pid;
> > };
>
> .. and then used here instead of "int"?
>
> Same goes for 'struct proc_fs_context' too, for that matter?
>
> And maybe in the function declarations and definitions too? In things
> like 'has_pid_permissions()' (the series adds some other cases later,
> like hidepid2str() etc)
>
> Yeah, enums and ints are kind of interchangeable in C, but even if it
> wouldn't give us any more typechecking (except perhaps with sparse if
> you mark it so), it would be documenting the use.
>
> Or am I missing something?
>
> Anyway, I continue to think the series looks fine, bnut would love to
> see it in -next and perhaps comments from Al and Alexey Dobriyan..
Patches are OK, except the part where "pid" is named "pidfs" and
the suffix doesn't convey any information.
mount -t proc -o subset=pid,sysctl,misc
Reviewed-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx>
