From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-44.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-44.mimecast.com [207.211.30.44]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA3D71B12C6 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2024 11:53:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=207.211.30.44 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725364422; cv=none; b=Fvud48xA0RYKMiCOYJn+jQsosLp9NJpKf/OnyPrYtriH6GGIGBGmTF89G2l3WsLjaqF285Y+BJ4AdCmUlNh1uf+BQ9UoYzI6bRnr1jC3OBICAAiPnC9M+Vo5UF3F9d3zWGMWc598H7UuqIGC4QRQXO9jDYeNUnv3r+qsCbm7Vfk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725364422; c=relaxed/simple; bh=urnj9GuG27DNI5xlR5nPfuJ6Tc7CunmKqS6unquM+Xw=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=eRhqLWOCwk17yp3lbeEBFzKCcYAGhBGejlxv76b4ZbimNcCVl2bfNiIAmCZKCwO+itxd/d4YqBdfzSpFR/u7a9KGptCY2f3TC3wMcxFpRGOHflBwGb/cHz3quVZqRP0nRTv/MyzA9tzeVmno1ZKtFBJ/9iw8pysc19JTEnDvZ9A= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net; arc=none smtp.client-ip=207.211.30.44 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net Received: from mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-43-iJenz3_vNcCMNekDt8McKQ-1; Tue, 03 Sep 2024 07:53:34 -0400 X-MC-Unique: iJenz3_vNcCMNekDt8McKQ-1 Received: from mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.15]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1956E1955BD0; Tue, 3 Sep 2024 11:53:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hog (unknown [10.39.192.5]) by mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BCBD1955F1B; Tue, 3 Sep 2024 11:53:26 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 13:53:23 +0200 From: Sabrina Dubroca To: Bharat Bhushan Cc: Bharat Bhushan , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sgoutham@marvell.com, gakula@marvell.com, sbhatta@marvell.com, hkelam@marvell.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, jerinj@marvell.com, lcherian@marvell.com, richardcochran@gmail.com Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v8 5/8] cn10k-ipsec: Add SA add/del support for outb ipsec crypto offload Message-ID: References: <20240903045937.1759543-1-bbhushan2@marvell.com> <20240903045937.1759543-6-bbhushan2@marvell.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.15 2024-09-03, 16:03:06 +0530, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 3:08 PM Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > 2024-09-03, 10:29:34 +0530, Bharat Bhushan wrote: > > > +static void cn10k_ipsec_del_state(struct xfrm_state *x) > > > +{ > > > + struct net_device *netdev = x->xso.dev; > > > + struct cn10k_tx_sa_s *sa_entry; > > > + struct cpt_ctx_info_s *sa_info; > > > + struct otx2_nic *pf; > > > + int sa_index; > > > + > > > + if (x->xso.dir == XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_IN) > > > + return; > > > + > > > + pf = netdev_priv(netdev); > > > + if (!mutex_trylock(&pf->ipsec.lock)) { > > > + netdev_err(netdev, "IPSEC device is busy\n"); > > > + return; > > > > If we can't take the lock, we leave the state installed on the device > > and leak some memory? That's not good. I assume we're going to reach > > HW limits if this happens a bunch of times, and then we can't offload > > ipsec at all anymore? > > > > I think it would be better to wait until we can take the lock. > > This is atomic context (in_atomic() is true). So we need to call the > trylock variant. Ok. Then I think this should be a spinlock instead of mutex. -- Sabrina