Herbert Xu wrote:
> It's still a valid clean-up patch though.

Agreed. There is also a bug in my patch, tmpl->daddr can be 0 in which
case the daddr passed as an argument to xfrm_state_find() will be used.
My patch only checked tmpl->daddr, this patch fixes it. It also uses
afinfo->init_tempsel directly, but I didn't kill xfrm_init_tempsel() yet
because I need it for xfrm resolution.

> There is another reason why it won't dead lock.  We don't actually
> ever hold the write lock on afinfo :) Is there any reason why we
> dont't just use xfrm_state_afinfo_lock instead of afinfo->lock?

I don't think so. I also don't see a reason why the lock needs to be
held between xfrm_state_get_afinfo() and xfrm_state_put_afinfo(),
a reference count should be enough.

Regards
Patrick