linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] ipc: reorganize initialization of kern_ipc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180706171812.7kbleqyxjbggd4y7@linux-r8p5>
Date:   Fri, 6 Jul 2018 10:18:12 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 1vier1@....de,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] ipc: reorganize initialization of kern_ipc_perm.seq

On Thu, 05 Jul 2018, Andrew Morton wrote:

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