linux-kernel - Re: [printk] 18a2dc6982: ltp.kmsg01.fail

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

Message-ID: <20200709144144.GL4751@alley>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jul 2020 16:41:44 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc:     John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
        kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lkp@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [printk] 18a2dc6982: ltp.kmsg01.fail

On Thu 2020-07-09 22:07:58, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/07/09 14:25), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Thu 2020-07-09 13:23:07, John Ogness wrote:
> > > On 2020-07-09, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> > > > I though more about it. IMHO, it will be better to modify
> > > > prb_first_seq() to do the same cycle as prb_next_seq()
> > > > and return seq number of the first valid entry.
> > > 
> > > Exactly!
> > > 
> > > Here is a patch that does just that. I added a prb_first_valid_seq()
> > > function and made prb_first_seq() static. (The ringbuffer still needs
> > > prb_first_seq() for itself.)
> > 
> > The fix looks fine to me:
> 
> Yeah, looks right to me as well.
> 
> > It means that we have two fixes on top of the original patchset. Could
> > you please send v5 with the two fixes integrated? I would just squash
> > them into the 4th patch.
> 
> I'd prefer v5, if possible.

Ah, my paragraph was confusing. I'd prefer v5 as well.

Best Regards,
Petr