From: "Timo Teräs" <timo.teras@iki.fi>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] xfrm: remove policy lock when accessing policy->walk.dead
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:55:07 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BB1842B.9010704@iki.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100329144339.GA26214@gondor.apana.org.au>
Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 05:12:38PM +0300, Timo Teras wrote:
>> @@ -1132,7 +1119,7 @@ int xfrm_sk_policy_insert(struct sock *sk, int dir, struct xfrm_policy *pol)
>> __xfrm_policy_link(pol, XFRM_POLICY_MAX+dir);
>> }
>> if (old_pol)
>> - __xfrm_policy_unlink(old_pol, XFRM_POLICY_MAX+dir);
>> + old_pol = __xfrm_policy_unlink(old_pol, XFRM_POLICY_MAX+dir);
>> write_unlock_bh(&xfrm_policy_lock);
>>
>> if (old_pol) {
>
> So when can this actually fail?
Considering that the socket reference is received from the sk->sk_policy,
and the hash bucket we use is "XFRM_POLICY_MAX+dir", it's non-obvious if
it can fail or not.
It would look like the timer can kill a policy and unlink it, but it
would still be found from sk_policy.
It probably doesn't really make sense to insert per-socket policy that
expires. But in case someone does something like that, I'd think we
need the above just to be sure.
Considering this, xfrm_sk_policy_lookup() should probably check the
dead flag, and cleanup sk_policy if it was killed by a timer.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-30 4:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-29 14:12 [PATCH 0/7] caching bundles, iteration 2 Timo Teras
2010-03-29 14:12 ` [PATCH 1/7] xfrm: remove policy lock when accessing policy->walk.dead Timo Teras
2010-03-29 14:43 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-30 4:55 ` Timo Teräs [this message]
2010-03-30 11:53 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-30 12:04 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-30 12:14 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-30 12:21 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-30 12:23 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-30 12:41 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-30 12:48 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-30 13:33 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-30 14:30 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-30 14:34 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-30 14:37 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-30 14:01 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-30 14:29 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-30 15:36 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-31 0:43 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-29 14:12 ` [PATCH 2/7] flow: structurize flow cache Timo Teras
2010-03-30 12:01 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-30 12:02 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-30 12:15 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-29 14:12 ` [PATCH 3/7] flow: allocate hash table for online cpus only Timo Teras
2010-03-30 12:12 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-31 12:32 ` Rusty Russell
2010-03-31 13:27 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-29 14:12 ` [PATCH 4/7] flow: delayed deletion of flow cache entries Timo Teras
2010-03-30 12:22 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-30 12:32 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-30 12:36 ` Herbert Xu
2010-03-30 12:43 ` Timo Teräs
2010-03-29 14:12 ` [PATCH 5/7] flow: virtualize get and entry deletion methods Timo Teras
2010-03-29 14:12 ` [PATCH 6/7] xfrm: cache bundles instead of policies for outgoing flows Timo Teras
2010-03-29 14:12 ` [PATCH 7/7] xfrm: remove policy garbage collection Timo Teras
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4BB1842B.9010704@iki.fi \
--to=timo.teras@iki.fi \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.