On 11/16/2023 12:44, Luck, Tony wrote: >>> 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. > Will do. Thanks for the confirmation! > -Tony > > -- Thanks, Avadhut Naik
