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;
Date:   Thu, 5 Jul 2018 14:56:56 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 1vier1@web.de,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] ipc: reorganize initialization of kern_ipc_perm.seq
Message-Id: <20180705145656.962e34582646b7a28d221f4a@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <7143da44-448b-8beb-7583-1a5516623649@colorfullife.com>
References: <20180705055920.19611-1-manfred@colorfullife.com>
        <20180705055920.19611-3-manfred@colorfullife.com>
        <CACT4Y+YyZT+JRyUcYRD83V13M-k91XUp1qkpBCUCkGfamLgDTg@mail.gmail.com>
        <7143da44-448b-8beb-7583-1a5516623649@colorfullife.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 17:12:36 +0200 Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com> wrote:

> 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?

Me.

But it's unclear which patchset we're talking about.  What's the plan
here?  To combine both efforts?


> 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?