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

Re: xfrm_state locking regression...

From: Timo Teräs <hidden>
Date: 2008-09-23 13:30:10

Herbert Xu wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 04:01:29PM +0300, Timo Teräs wrote:
quoted
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 :)
Umm... right. It's a tricky problem. Cannot think of perfect
solution atm. But I guess 3 is in general case the best. But in
worst case scenarios 1 performs better.

I have no strong opinion either way. So what ever you want, I'm
happy to provide a patch for.
quoted
Btw. the current stuff in net-next is broken. There's no locking
for xfrm_state_walkers list handling.
What about xfrm_cfg_mutex?
It's used only in xfrm_state_gc_task. xfrm_state_walk_{init,done}
touch xfrm_state_walks list without locking properly. At least in
the version I'm looking (= net-next-2.6 via git web interface).

- Timo
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help