Re: [PATCH net 0/2] bond: fix xfrm offload feature during init

[Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 07:31:27PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 07:18:08 +0000 Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 06:27:34AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:11:25 +0000 Hangbin Liu wrote:  
> > > > The first patch fixes the xfrm offload feature during setup active-backup
> > > > mode. The second patch add a ipsec offload testing.  
> > > 
> > > Looks like the test is too good, is there a fix pending somewhere for
> > > the BUG below? We can't merge the test before that:  
> > 
> > This should be a regression of 2aeeef906d5a ("bonding: change ipsec_lock from
> > spin lock to mutex"). As in xfrm_state_delete we called spin_lock_bh(&x->lock)
> > for the xfrm state delete.
> > 
> > But I'm not sure if it's proper to release the spin lock in bond code.
> > This seems too specific.
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > index 7daeab67e7b5..69563bc958ca 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> > @@ -592,6 +592,7 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
> >  	real_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(xs);
> >  out:
> >  	netdev_put(real_dev, &tracker);
> > +	spin_unlock_bh(&xs->lock);
> >  	mutex_lock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> >  	list_for_each_entry(ipsec, &bond->ipsec_list, list) {
> >  		if (ipsec->xs == xs) {
> > @@ -601,6 +602,7 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >  	mutex_unlock(&bond->ipsec_lock);
> > +	spin_lock_bh(&xs->lock);
> >  }
> >  
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> Re-locking doesn't look great, glancing at the code I don't see any
> obvious better workarounds. Easiest fix would be to don't let the
> drivers sleep in the callbacks and then we can go back to a spin lock.
> Maybe nvidia people have better ideas, I'm not familiar with this
> offload.

I don't know how to disable bonding sleeping since we use mutex_lock now.
Hi Jianbo, do you have any idea?

Thanks
Hangbin