From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] xfrm: remove policy lock when accessing policy->walk.dead Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:41:23 -0400 Message-ID: <1270042883.26743.32.camel@bigi> References: <1270030626-16687-1-git-send-email-timo.teras@iki.fi> <1270030626-16687-5-git-send-email-timo.teras@iki.fi> <20100331110345.GC12845@gondor.apana.org.au> <1270040773.26743.12.camel@bigi> <20100331131131.GA13793@gondor.apana.org.au> <20100331132622.GA13908@gondor.apana.org.au> <1270042356.26743.30.camel@bigi> <1270042795.26743.31.camel@bigi> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Timo Teras , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com ([209.85.221.179]:61716 "EHLO mail-qy0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933358Ab0CaNl0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:41:26 -0400 Received: by qyk9 with SMTP id 9so103339qyk.1 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 06:41:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1270042795.26743.31.camel@bigi> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 09:39 -0400, jamal wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 09:32 -0400, jamal wrote: > > > I did not touch pfkey. That behavior remains there. > > Sorry - I lied. I did touch pfkey. Here was my reasoning. And what I meant by not touching is that "the behavior there remains as it was before" cheers, jamal > RFC 2367 says flushing behavior should be: > 1) user space -> kernel: flush > 2) kernel: flush > 3) kernel -> user space: flush event to ALL listeners > > This is not realistic today in the presence of selinux policies > which may reject the flush etc. So we make the sequence become: > 1) user space -> kernel: flush > 2) kernel: flush > 3) kernel -> user space: flush response to originater from #1 > 4) if there were no errors then: > kernel -> user space: flush event to ALL listeners > > This was in the logs. > > cheers, > jamal