[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZiDs3n3yTLMnLzaK@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:50:22 +0200
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <devel@...ux-ipsec.org>, Paul Wouters
<paul@...ats.ca>, Antony Antony <antony.antony@...unet.com>, Tobias Brunner
<tobias@...ongswan.org>, Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next 1/3] xfrm: Add support for per cpu xfrm state
handling.
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 04:12:30PM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2024-04-12, 08:05:51 +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
> > index 0c306473a79d..b41b5dd72d8e 100644
> > --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
> > +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
> [...]
> > @@ -1096,6 +1098,9 @@ static void xfrm_state_look_at(struct xfrm_policy *pol, struct xfrm_state *x,
> > struct xfrm_state **best, int *acq_in_progress,
> > int *error)
> > {
> > + unsigned int pcpu_id = get_cpu();
> > + put_cpu();
>
> That looks really strange to me. Is it safe? If it is, I guess you
> could just use smp_processor_id(), since you don't get anything out of
> the extra preempt_disable/enable pair.
We can use use smp_processor_id() as we just need the ID as a lookup
key.
>
> (same in xfrm_state_find)
>
>
> [...]
> > @@ -2458,6 +2478,8 @@ static int build_aevent(struct sk_buff *skb, struct xfrm_state *x, const struct
> > err = xfrm_if_id_put(skb, x->if_id);
> > if (err)
> > goto out_cancel;
> > + if (x->pcpu_num != UINT_MAX)
> > + err = nla_put_u32(skb, XFRMA_SA_PCPU, x->pcpu_num);
>
> Missing the corresponding change to xfrm_aevent_msgsize?
Right, fixed.
> [...]
> > @@ -3049,6 +3078,7 @@ const struct nla_policy xfrma_policy[XFRMA_MAX+1] = {
> > [XFRMA_SET_MARK_MASK] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> > [XFRMA_IF_ID] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> > [XFRMA_MTIMER_THRESH] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> > + [XFRMA_SA_PCPU] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
>
> What about xfrm_compat? Don't we need to add XFRMA_SA_PCPU to
> compat_policy, and then some changes to the translators?
Yeah, I forgot this. The compat layer did not yet exist when
I wrote the initial pachset. The IETF standardization process
held this pachset off for about 5 years :-/
> [...]
> > @@ -3216,6 +3246,11 @@ static int build_expire(struct sk_buff *skb, struct xfrm_state *x, const struct
> > err = xfrm_if_id_put(skb, x->if_id);
> > if (err)
> > return err;
> > + if (x->pcpu_num != UINT_MAX) {
> > + err = nla_put_u32(skb, XFRMA_SA_PCPU, x->pcpu_num);
>
> Missing the corresponding change to xfrm_expire_msgsize?
Fixed.
> [...]
> > @@ -3453,6 +3490,8 @@ static int build_acquire(struct sk_buff *skb, struct xfrm_state *x,
> > err = xfrm_if_id_put(skb, xp->if_id);
> > if (!err && xp->xdo.dev)
> > err = copy_user_offload(&xp->xdo, skb);
> > + if (!err && x->pcpu_num != UINT_MAX)
> > + err = nla_put_u32(skb, XFRMA_SA_PCPU, x->pcpu_num);
>
> Missing the corresponding change to xfrm_acquire_msgsize?
Fixed.
Thanks for the review Sabrina!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists