[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100330115351.GA5731@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:53:51 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] xfrm: remove policy lock when accessing
policy->walk.dead
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 07:55:07AM +0300, Timo Teräs wrote:
> Herbert Xu wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 05:12:38PM +0300, Timo Teras wrote:
>>> @@ -1132,7 +1119,7 @@ int xfrm_sk_policy_insert(struct sock *sk, int dir, struct xfrm_policy *pol)
>>> __xfrm_policy_link(pol, XFRM_POLICY_MAX+dir);
>>> }
>>> if (old_pol)
>>> - __xfrm_policy_unlink(old_pol, XFRM_POLICY_MAX+dir);
>>> + old_pol = __xfrm_policy_unlink(old_pol, XFRM_POLICY_MAX+dir);
>>> write_unlock_bh(&xfrm_policy_lock);
>>> if (old_pol) {
>>
>> So when can this actually fail?
>
> Considering that the socket reference is received from the sk->sk_policy,
> and the hash bucket we use is "XFRM_POLICY_MAX+dir", it's non-obvious if
> it can fail or not.
>
> It would look like the timer can kill a policy and unlink it, but it
> would still be found from sk_policy.
Socket policies cannot expire.
In fact, they probably shouldn't even be on the bydst or any other
hash table. I think the only reason they're there at all is because
the hash table was added to __xfrm_policy_link which happens to be
used by socket policies.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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