On 5/8/20 9:07 AM, Vasily Averin wrote:
> On 5/8/20 6:36 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:02:42PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> Here's how I resolved things. Please check?
>>>
>>> static struct kern_ipc_perm *sysvipc_find_ipc(struct ipc_ids *ids, loff_t
>>> pos,
>>> loff_t *new_pos)
>>> {
>>> unsigned long index = pos;
>>> struct kern_ipc_perm *ipc;
>>>
>>> rcu_read_lock();
>>> ipc = xa_find(&ids->ipcs, &index, ULONG_MAX, XA_PRESENT);
>>> if (ipc)
>>> ipc_lock_object(ipc);
>>> else
>>> rcu_read_unlock();
>>> *new_pos = pos + 1;
>>> return ipc;
>>> }
>>
>> Surely that should be '*new_pos = index + 1'? Or did I misunderstand
>> the reasoning behind the other patch?
>
> I'm not sure however it looks like xa_find() can return index < pos
it seems, I was wrong here.
So I'm agree with Matthew, '*new_pos = index + 1' should be used.
Thank you,
Vasily Averin
