Thread (95 messages) 95 messages, 4 authors, 2008-10-01

Re: xfrm_state locking regression...

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: 2008-09-23 13:07:15

On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 04:01:29PM +0300, Timo Teräs wrote:
So, what to do?
1. Go back to: list_del_rcu, xfrm_state_hold(all.next) on delete and
   xfrm_state_put(all.next) on destruct.
2. Add per-entry hlist of walkers currently referencing it.
3. Use the global walker list.

1 can keep memory allocated until userland wakes up. 2 & 3 can make
the delete of that entry slow if there's many walkers suspended.
I'd cross 3 off the list because 2 is just so much better :)

I'd slightly lean towards 2 but now that you mention it yes even
that is vulnerable to loads of dumpers sitting on the same entry.
So SELINUX folks wouldn't like that :)
Btw. the current stuff in net-next is broken. There's no locking
for xfrm_state_walkers list handling.
What about xfrm_cfg_mutex?

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} [off-list ref]
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help