Re: [RFC 2.6.10 5/22] xfrm: Attempt to offload bundled xfrm_states for outbound xfrms

David Dillow
2004-12-31T03:31:30Z

On Fri, 2004-12-31 at 00:34 +0100, Francois Romieu wrote:
> David Dillow <dave@thedillows.org> :
> [...]
> > diff -Nru a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
> > --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c 2004-12-30 01:11:18 -05:00
> > +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c 2004-12-30 01:11:18 -05:00
> > @@ -705,6 +705,31 @@
> > };
> > }
> >
> > +static void xfrm_accel_bundle(struct dst_entry *dst)
> > +{
> > + struct xfrm_bundle_list bundle, *xbl, *tmp;
> > + struct net_device *dev = dst->dev;
> > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bundle.node);
> > +
> > + if (dev && netif_running(dev) && (dev->features & NETIF_F_IPSEC)) {
> > + while (dst) {
> > + xbl = kmalloc(sizeof(*xbl), GFP_ATOMIC);
> > + if (!xbl)
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > + xbl->dst = dst;
> > + list_add_tail(&xbl->node, &bundle.node);
> > + dst = dst->child;
> > + }
> > +
> > + dev->xfrm_bundle_add(dev, &bundle);
> > + }
> > +
> > +out:
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(xbl, tmp, &bundle.node, node)
> > + kfree(xbl);
> > +}
>
> If the driver knows the max depth which is allowed, why not have it
> allocate its own bundle-like struct during initialization one for once ?
> Instead of pushing the bundle list, dst is walked by the code of
> the device's own xyz_xfrm_bundle_add into the said circular list,
> entries get overwriten if the dst chain is longer and when the end of
> dst is reached, the bundle-like list is walked in reverse order.
> It avoids a few failure points imho.

Good idea! I'll see if I can't code it up. I definitely want to get rid
of that GFP_ATOMIC allocation.
--
David Dillow <dave@thedillows.org>