Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 2 Sep 2022 16:27:46 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Varsha Teratipally <teratipally@google.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>,
        Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com>,
        Alexander Mikhalitsyn <alexander.mikhalitsyn@virtuozzo.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Request to cherry-pick 20401d1058f3f841f35a594ac2fc1293710e55b9
 to v5.10 and v5.4
Message-ID: <YxIS4jWE03E5pZjS@kroah.com>
References: <20220902135912.816188-1-teratipally@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220902135912.816188-1-teratipally@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 01:59:11PM +0000, Varsha Teratipally wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Commit 20401d1058f3f841f35a594ac2fc1293710e55b9("ipc: replace costly
> bailout check in sysvipc_find_ipc()" fixes a high cve and optimizes the
> costly loop by adding a checkpoint, which I think might be a good
> candidate for the stable branches

What do you mean by "high cve"?

And that feels like it's an artificial benchmark fixup, what real
workload benefits from this change?

thanks,

greg k-h