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:   Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:18:12 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        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: <20180706171812.7kbleqyxjbggd4y7@linux-r8p5>
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>
 <20180705145656.962e34582646b7a28d221f4a@linux-foundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180705145656.962e34582646b7a28d221f4a@linux-foundation.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170912 (1.9.0)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 05 Jul 2018, Andrew Morton wrote:

>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?

I'm thinking this series will conflict with the ipc rhashtable fixes I
sent out earlier (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/6/21/727).

Thanks,
Davidlohr