> > The minimalist change here would be to s/0444/0666/ > > > Just realized that s/0444/0644/ might be an even more minimalist change since you anyways, > I think, need to be root for error injection through einj. Does that sound good? You need write access. I don't think you need to be root. E.g. a validation system might set up an "einj" group and "chmod" all these files to 0664. But that's nitpicking. > > In any case, using 0666 will result in the below checkpatch warning: > > [root avadnaik-linux]# ./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict -g HEAD > WARNING: Exporting world writable files is usually an error. Consider more restrictive permissions. > #84: FILE: fs/debugfs/file.c:1063: > + return debugfs_create_file_unsafe(name, mode & 0666, parent, blob, &fops_blob); > > total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 54 lines checked The warning is dubious. This code isn't necessarily exporting a world writeable file. But it does allow a caller of this routine to do that. > > Would you be okay with s/0444/0644/? > - return debugfs_create_file_unsafe(name, mode & 0444, parent, blob, &fops_blob); > + return debugfs_create_file_unsafe(name, mode & 0644, parent, blob, &fops_blob); Yes. This is fine (better). Make sure to mention in the commit comment that this allows callers to create files writeable by owner. -Tony
