Re: [PATCH v9] selinux: sidtab: reverse lookup hash table

From: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
To: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>
Cc: Jeff Vander Stoep <jeffv@google.com>,
	SElinux list <selinux@vger.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Smalley <sds@tycho.nsa.gov>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	rcu@vger.kernel.org, Jovana Knezevic <jovanak@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9] selinux: sidtab: reverse lookup hash table
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 18:52:21 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHC9VhTwct8daQoXFg4JpHkWUhijQFn8D0Tq=VX989mq3TVfvg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFqZXNun_-aWx19UKUMfiYuQuttxCgMOoAczBAddDv3yaCZyxw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 4:11 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 1:33 AM Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com> wrote:
> > Thanks Jeff, as well as everyone else who contributed reviews and feedback.
> >
> > I've pulled this into a working branch and I'll be merging it with the
> > other sidtab patches before posting it to a "next-queue" branch for
> > review later this week.  When done, I'll send a note to the list, as
> > well as the relevant patch authors; your help in reviewing the merge
> > would be greatly appreciated.
>
> I tried doing the merge on my own here [1], you can use it as a sanity
> check if we came to the same/similar result. I based it off your
> existing next-queue, which contains only Jeff's patch at the time of
> writing. I only build-tested it so far.

Thanks, that was a good sanity check.  There are some minor diffs from
what I ended up with, but nothing substantive that I can see.

Although I'll be honest, the merge wasn't as bad as I thought it would
be; most of the fuzz was simply due shuffling and renaming of data
structures, which generally isn't too bad.  Although I'm still
building the kernel to test it, so let's see if that statement still
holds (although it looks like it passed Stephen's testing). ;)

If you haven't noticed already, the merge currently lives in the
selinux/next-queue branch; if you notice anything off, feel free to
send a fixup patch.

> Note that there are two whitespace cleanups included in the string
> cache commit that I intuitively did while resolving the merge
> conflicts. You might want to move those to the first commit or just
> ignore them.

When looking at the combined diff between the two sidtab patches and
comparing it to your merge I did make a few additional small cosmetic
tweaks.  Assuming the testing goes well, I'll probably go over
everything one more time to make sure the style looks okay, but today
I was focusing more on the correctness.

> [1] https://gitlab.com/omos/linux-public/compare/selinux-next...rebase-selinux-sidtab-string-cache

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com