Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] ipc: reorganize initialization of kern_ipc_perm.seq
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 1vier1@web.de,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
References: <20180705055920.19611-1-manfred@colorfullife.com>
 <20180705055920.19611-3-manfred@colorfullife.com>
 <CACT4Y+YyZT+JRyUcYRD83V13M-k91XUp1qkpBCUCkGfamLgDTg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Message-ID: <7143da44-448b-8beb-7583-1a5516623649@colorfullife.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Jul 2018 17:12:36 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+YyZT+JRyUcYRD83V13M-k91XUp1qkpBCUCkGfamLgDTg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Dmitry,

On 07/05/2018 10:36 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> [...]
> Hi Manfred,
>
> The series looks like a significant improvement to me. Thanks!
>
> I feel that this code can be further simplified (unless I am missing
> something here). Please take a look at this version:
>
> https://github.com/dvyukov/linux/commit/f77aeaf80f3c4ab524db92184d874b03063fea3a?diff=split
>
> This is on top of your patches. It basically does the same as your
> code, but consolidates all id/seq assignment and dealing with next_id,
> and deduplicates code re CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE. Currently it's a
> bit tricky to follow e.g. where exactly next_id is consumed and where
> it needs to be left intact.
> The only difference is that my code assigns new->id earlier. Not sure
> if it can lead to anything bad. But if yes, then it seems that
> currently uninitialized new->id is exposed. If necessary (?) we could
> reset new->id in the same place where we set new->deleted.
Everything looks correct for me, it is better than the current code.
Except that you didn't sign off your last patch.

As next step: Who can merge the patches towards linux-next?
The only open point that I see are stress tests of the error codepaths.

And:
I don't think that the patches are relevant for linux-stable, correct?

--
     Manfred