From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Timo_Ter=E4s?= <timo.teras@iki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] xfrm: remove policy lock when accessing policy->walk.dead
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:04:01 +0300
Message-ID: <4BB1E8B1.4030604@iki.fi>
References: <1269871964-5412-1-git-send-email-timo.teras@iki.fi> <1269871964-5412-2-git-send-email-timo.teras@iki.fi> <20100329144339.GA26214@gondor.apana.org.au> <4BB1842B.9010704@iki.fi> <20100330115351.GA5731@gondor.apana.org.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
	format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-ew0-f220.google.com ([209.85.219.220]:62884 "EHLO
	mail-ew0-f220.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1756469Ab0C3MEF (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:04:05 -0400
Received: by ewy20 with SMTP id 20so1173433ewy.1
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 05:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20100330115351.GA5731@gondor.apana.org.au>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 07:55:07AM +0300, Timo Ter=E4s wrote:
>> 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, i=
nt 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 =3D __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_po=
licy,
>> and the hash bucket we use is "XFRM_POLICY_MAX+dir", it's non-obviou=
s 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.
>=20
> Socket policies cannot expire.

Was not aware of that. The above is not needed then.

> In fact, they probably shouldn't even be on the bydst or any other
> hash table.  I think the only reason they're there at all is because
> the hash table was added to __xfrm_policy_link which happens to be
> used by socket policies.

I think it's hashed so socket policies are included in the policy
db dumps and counts.