[PATCH] xfrm: Refcount destination entry on xfrm_lookup

We return a destination entry without refcount if a socket
policy is found in xfrm_lookup. This triggers a warning on
a negative refcount when freeeing this dst entry. So take
a refcount in this case to fix it.

This refcount was forgotten when xfrm changed to cache bundles
instead of policies for outgoing flows.

Signed-off-by: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
---
 net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c |    2 ++
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
index 027e3c6..15792d8 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c

@@ -1804,6 +1804,8 @@ restart:
 				goto no_transform;
 			}
 
+			dst_hold(&xdst->u.dst);
+
 			spin_lock_bh(&xfrm_policy_sk_bundle_lock);
 			xdst->u.dst.next = xfrm_policy_sk_bundles;
 			xfrm_policy_sk_bundles = &xdst->u.dst;

-- 
1.7.0.4

On 03/16/2011 09:12 AM, Steffen Klassert wrote:

We return a destination entry without refcount if a socket
policy is found in xfrm_lookup. This triggers a warning on
a negative refcount when freeeing this dst entry. So take
a refcount in this case to fix it.

This refcount was forgotten when xfrm changed to cache bundles
instead of policies for outgoing flows.

Signed-off-by: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>

Acked-by: Timo Teräs <redacted>

Ok. This is one of the corner cases I did not test: having socket policy
something else than no action. I just didn't have the application ready
for it. Sorry about the bug. And good catch Steffen.

From: Timo Teräs <redacted>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:03:23 +0200

On 03/16/2011 09:12 AM, Steffen Klassert wrote:

quoted

We return a destination entry without refcount if a socket
policy is found in xfrm_lookup. This triggers a warning on
a negative refcount when freeeing this dst entry. So take
a refcount in this case to fix it.

This refcount was forgotten when xfrm changed to cache bundles
instead of policies for outgoing flows.

Signed-off-by: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>

Acked-by: Timo Teräs <redacted>

Ok. This is one of the corner cases I did not test: having socket policy
something else than no action. I just didn't have the application ready
for it. Sorry about the bug. And good catch Steffen.

Applied and queued up for -stable, thanks!