On 1/9/2025 6:17 PM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 05:51:07PM +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote:
No, we don't need. But I am trying to understand what you said in your last email about adding a new lock, or unlocking spin lock in
I *thought* we need the spin lock in xfrm_state_delete(). So to protect xfrm_state,
But not need in bond_ipsec_del_sa() because the state still hold by xfrm_state_hold(), right?
Hmm, I'm not sure. If xfrm_state_hold() is safe. Why not just remove the spin lock in xfrm_state_delete(). This is more straightforward. e.g.
We can't remove the spin lock in xfrm_state_delete(), but I think we can access the state while holding it, for example, checking (ipsec->xs == xs) as you mentioned before, because memory is not freed yet.
diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c index 67ca7ac955a3..150562abf513 100644 --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c @@ -784,9 +784,7 @@ int xfrm_state_delete(struct xfrm_state *x) { int err;
spin_lock_bh(&x->lock); err = __xfrm_state_delete(x);spin_unlock_bh(&x->lock); return err;}
We can even rename xfrm_state_delete() to xfrm_state_delete() directly.
Thanks Hangbin