* [PATCH] xfrm: do not check x->km.state
@ 2012-12-13 9:06 roy.qing.li
2012-12-13 10:19 ` Steffen Klassert
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: roy.qing.li @ 2012-12-13 9:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev
From: Li RongQing <roy.qing.li@gmail.com>
do not check x->km.state, it will be checked by succedent
xfrm_state_check_expire()
Signed-off-by: Li RongQing <roy.qing.li@gmail.com>
---
net/ipv6/xfrm6_input.c | 1 -
net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c | 4 ----
2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv6/xfrm6_input.c b/net/ipv6/xfrm6_input.c
index f8c3cf8..de4babd 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/xfrm6_input.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/xfrm6_input.c
@@ -108,7 +108,6 @@ int xfrm6_input_addr(struct sk_buff *skb, xfrm_address_t *daddr,
spin_lock(&x->lock);
if ((!i || (x->props.flags & XFRM_STATE_WILDRECV)) &&
- likely(x->km.state == XFRM_STATE_VALID) &&
!xfrm_state_check_expire(x)) {
spin_unlock(&x->lock);
if (x->type->input(x, skb) > 0) {
diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
index ab2bb42..a8fbb09 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
@@ -163,10 +163,6 @@ int xfrm_input(struct sk_buff *skb, int nexthdr, __be32 spi, int encap_type)
skb->sp->xvec[skb->sp->len++] = x;
spin_lock(&x->lock);
- if (unlikely(x->km.state != XFRM_STATE_VALID)) {
- XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMINSTATEINVALID);
- goto drop_unlock;
- }
if ((x->encap ? x->encap->encap_type : 0) != encap_type) {
XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMINSTATEMISMATCH);
--
1.7.5.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfrm: do not check x->km.state
2012-12-13 9:06 [PATCH] xfrm: do not check x->km.state roy.qing.li
@ 2012-12-13 10:19 ` Steffen Klassert
2012-12-13 19:19 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Steffen Klassert @ 2012-12-13 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: roy.qing.li; +Cc: netdev
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 05:06:00PM +0800, roy.qing.li@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Li RongQing <roy.qing.li@gmail.com>
>
> do not check x->km.state, it will be checked by succedent
> xfrm_state_check_expire()
>
> Signed-off-by: Li RongQing <roy.qing.li@gmail.com>
> ---
> net/ipv6/xfrm6_input.c | 1 -
> net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c | 4 ----
> 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv6/xfrm6_input.c b/net/ipv6/xfrm6_input.c
> index f8c3cf8..de4babd 100644
> --- a/net/ipv6/xfrm6_input.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/xfrm6_input.c
> @@ -108,7 +108,6 @@ int xfrm6_input_addr(struct sk_buff *skb, xfrm_address_t *daddr,
> spin_lock(&x->lock);
>
> if ((!i || (x->props.flags & XFRM_STATE_WILDRECV)) &&
> - likely(x->km.state == XFRM_STATE_VALID) &&
> !xfrm_state_check_expire(x)) {
> spin_unlock(&x->lock);
> if (x->type->input(x, skb) > 0) {
> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
> index ab2bb42..a8fbb09 100644
> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
> @@ -163,10 +163,6 @@ int xfrm_input(struct sk_buff *skb, int nexthdr, __be32 spi, int encap_type)
> skb->sp->xvec[skb->sp->len++] = x;
>
> spin_lock(&x->lock);
> - if (unlikely(x->km.state != XFRM_STATE_VALID)) {
> - XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMINSTATEINVALID);
> - goto drop_unlock;
> - }
This would remove the only place where the LINUX_MIB_XFRMINSTATEINVALID
statistics counter is incremented. I think it would be better to ensure
a valid state before we call xfrm_state_check_expire(). This would make
the statistics more accurate and we can remove the x->km.state check
from xfrm_state_check_expire().
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfrm: do not check x->km.state
2012-12-13 10:19 ` Steffen Klassert
@ 2012-12-13 19:19 ` David Miller
2012-12-14 7:02 ` RongQing Li
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2012-12-13 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: steffen.klassert; +Cc: roy.qing.li, netdev
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:19:48 +0100
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 05:06:00PM +0800, roy.qing.li@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Li RongQing <roy.qing.li@gmail.com>
>>
>> do not check x->km.state, it will be checked by succedent
>> xfrm_state_check_expire()
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Li RongQing <roy.qing.li@gmail.com>
...
> This would remove the only place where the LINUX_MIB_XFRMINSTATEINVALID
> statistics counter is incremented. I think it would be better to ensure
> a valid state before we call xfrm_state_check_expire(). This would make
> the statistics more accurate and we can remove the x->km.state check
> from xfrm_state_check_expire().
Agreed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfrm: do not check x->km.state
2012-12-13 19:19 ` David Miller
@ 2012-12-14 7:02 ` RongQing Li
2012-12-14 11:45 ` Steffen Klassert
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: RongQing Li @ 2012-12-14 7:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Miller; +Cc: steffen.klassert, netdev
2012/12/14 David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
> From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:19:48 +0100
>
>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 05:06:00PM +0800, roy.qing.li@gmail.com wrote:
>>> From: Li RongQing <roy.qing.li@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> do not check x->km.state, it will be checked by succedent
>>> xfrm_state_check_expire()
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Li RongQing <roy.qing.li@gmail.com>
> ...
>> This would remove the only place where the LINUX_MIB_XFRMINSTATEINVALID
>> statistics counter is incremented. I think it would be better to ensure
>> a valid state before we call xfrm_state_check_expire(). This would make
>> the statistics more accurate and we can remove the x->km.state check
>> from xfrm_state_check_expire().
>
> Agreed.
Thanks.
since xfrm_output_one() calls xfrm_state_check_expire() too, but without
checking (x->km.state != XFRM_STATE_VALID), I think we can not directly
remove the check of km.state from xfrm_state_check_expire(). I have two
option, which one do you think it is better?
1. remove this check in xfrm_state_check_expire, and add a check in
xfrm_output_one
diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_output.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_output.c
index 95a338c..c245370 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_output.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_output.c
@@ -61,6 +61,12 @@ static int xfrm_output_one(struct sk_buff *skb, int err)
}
spin_lock_bh(&x->lock);
+
+ if (unlikely(x->km.state != XFRM_STATE_VALID)) {
+ XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMOUTSTATEINVALID);
+ goto drop_unlock;
+ }
+
err = xfrm_state_check_expire(x);
if (err) {
XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMOUTSTATEEXPIRED);
diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_proc.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_proc.c
index d0a1af8..e4cd441 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_proc.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_proc.c
@@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ static const struct snmp_mib xfrm_mib_list[] = {
SNMP_MIB_ITEM("XfrmOutStateModeError", LINUX_MIB_XFRMOUTSTATEMODEERROR),
SNMP_MIB_ITEM("XfrmOutStateSeqError", LINUX_MIB_XFRMOUTSTATESEQERROR),
SNMP_MIB_ITEM("XfrmOutStateExpired", LINUX_MIB_XFRMOUTSTATEEXPIRED),
+ SNMP_MIB_ITEM("XfrmOutStateInvalid", LINUX_MIB_XFRMOUTSTATEINVALID),
SNMP_MIB_ITEM("XfrmOutPolBlock", LINUX_MIB_XFRMOUTPOLBLOCK),
SNMP_MIB_ITEM("XfrmOutPolDead", LINUX_MIB_XFRMOUTPOLDEAD),
SNMP_MIB_ITEM("XfrmOutPolError", LINUX_MIB_XFRMOUTPOLERROR),
diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
index 3459692..05db236 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
@@ -1370,9 +1370,6 @@ int xfrm_state_check_expire(struct xfrm_state *x)
if (!x->curlft.use_time)
x->curlft.use_time = get_seconds();
- if (x->km.state != XFRM_STATE_VALID)
- return -EINVAL;
-
if (x->curlft.bytes >= x->lft.hard_byte_limit ||
x->curlft.packets >= x->lft.hard_packet_limit) {
x->km.state = XFRM_STATE_EXPIRED;
2. Only remove this check in xfrm6_input.c
--- a/net/ipv6/xfrm6_input.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/xfrm6_input.c
@@ -109,7 +109,6 @@ int xfrm6_input_addr(struct sk_buff *skb,
xfrm_address_t *daddr,
if ((!i || (x->props.flags & XFRM_STATE_WILDRECV)) &&
- likely(x->km.state == XFRM_STATE_VALID) &&
!xfrm_state_check_expire(x)) {
spin_unlock(&x->lock);
if (x->type->input(x, skb) > 0) {
/* found a valid state */
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfrm: do not check x->km.state
2012-12-14 7:02 ` RongQing Li
@ 2012-12-14 11:45 ` Steffen Klassert
2012-12-15 1:36 ` RongQing Li
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Steffen Klassert @ 2012-12-14 11:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: RongQing Li; +Cc: David Miller, netdev
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 03:02:32PM +0800, RongQing Li wrote:
>
> since xfrm_output_one() calls xfrm_state_check_expire() too, but without
> checking (x->km.state != XFRM_STATE_VALID), I think we can not directly
> remove the check of km.state from xfrm_state_check_expire(). I have two
> option, which one do you think it is better?
>
> 1. remove this check in xfrm_state_check_expire, and add a check in
> xfrm_output_one
>
I think the first option ist the better one. It removes a superfluous
check and we get some more statistics.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfrm: do not check x->km.state
2012-12-14 11:45 ` Steffen Klassert
@ 2012-12-15 1:36 ` RongQing Li
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: RongQing Li @ 2012-12-15 1:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steffen Klassert; +Cc: David Miller, netdev
2012/12/14 Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>:
>> 1. remove this check in xfrm_state_check_expire, and add a check in
>> xfrm_output_one
>>
>
> I think the first option ist the better one. It removes a superfluous
> check and we get some more statistics.
I see, thanks
-Roy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-12-15 1:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-12-13 9:06 [PATCH] xfrm: do not check x->km.state roy.qing.li
2012-12-13 10:19 ` Steffen Klassert
2012-12-13 19:19 ` David Miller
2012-12-14 7:02 ` RongQing Li
2012-12-14 11:45 ` Steffen Klassert
2012-12-15 1:36 ` RongQing Li
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).