On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 07:12:19AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 09:25:32AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 06:08:23PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Convert the serio sysfs fiels to use the DEVICE_ATTR_RO() macros to make > > > it easier to audit the correct sysfs file permission usage. > > > > Sorry for the delay. Frankly I am not a fan of DEVICE_ATTR macros as it > > forces particular naming of the attribute structures and methods and > > forces us to lose the module prefix in names. I prefer all functions and > > file-scope variables have module prefix because in the absence of > > language-supported namespaces this is the one thing that insulates > > drivers from changes in shared headers. > > No sysfs read/write functions should ever be exported out of the local > file "scope", so why is this an issue? I have run into it being a > problem for some files, where people have device/bus/class sysfs files > all in the same .c file, but that usage is very limited. It is not about exporting read/write functions, it is about newly defined data from common headers stomping on the local module definitions. > > I'm trying to eventually convert the whole kernel to use the > DEVICE_ATTR_??() macros to make it so that we can audit the sysfs file > permissions easier, by making them impossible to get wrong. We have had > problems in the past where device files had incorrect permissions and > unprivilidged users could do things they shouldn't have. Using these > macros _should_ prevent almost all of that from even being possible. Sounds more like task for sparse to ensure we have sane permission bits. > > Now odds are, I'll never be able to remove DEVICE_ATTR() from the tree, > as there are some strange files that use crazy permissions and we have > to live with that, but for all of the "simple" files, like are done > here, I'd really like to use them, especially as it provides a > kernel-wide uniformity to the naming of attribute function calls, which > is a huge benifit as well. > > Note, I did apply this patch to my tree already, and it's queued up for > 3.13-rc1. If you really object to it, I'll revert it, and fix up the > 02/02 patch in this series to not need it, but I'd really like you to > reconsider your objection. Nah, that is fine. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
