[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080909.214829.193700357.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc: timo.teras@....fi, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: xfrm_state locking regression...
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:22:47 +1000
>
> > On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 09:06:54PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > @@ -120,7 +120,6 @@ extern struct mutex xfrm_cfg_mutex;
> > > /* Full description of state of transformer. */
> > > struct xfrm_state
> > > {
> > > - struct list_head all;
> > > union {
> > > struct list_head gclist;
> > > struct hlist_node bydst;
> >
> > This union now needs to move across to bysrc or byspi since bydst
> > needs to be preserved for walking even after a node is added to
> > the GC.
>
> That would explain the crash I just got :)
No, it doesn't explain the crash/hang. And it happens even without my
patch.
I get a hang in del_timer_sync() and it's from a workqueue so I suspect
your patch :-)
I can't see what does the list delete from the GC leftover list? Entries
seem to stay on there forever. We even kfree() the object.
The list iteration is:
list_for_each_entry_safe(x, tmp, &xfrm_state_gc_leftovers, gclist) {
if ((long)(x->lastused - completed) > 0)
break;
xfrm_state_gc_destroy(x);
}
And xfrm_state_gc_destroy() doesn't do a list_del(&x->gclist) or similar.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists