On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 07:15:00AM +0000, Hangbin Liu wrote:
I don't know how to disable bonding sleeping since we use mutex_lock now. Hi Jianbo, do you have any idea?
I think we should allow drivers to sleep in the callbacks. So, maybe it's better to move driver's xdo_dev_state_delete out of state's spin lock.
I just check the code, xfrm_dev_state_delete() and later dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete(x) have too many xfrm_state x checks. Can we really move it out of spin lock from xfrm_state_delete()
I tried to move the mutex lock code to a work queue, but found we need to check (ipsec->xs == xs) in bonding. So we still need xfrm_state x during bond
Maybe I miss something, but why need to hold spin lock. You can keep xfrm state by its refcnt.
Do you mean move the xfrm_dev_state_delete() out of spin lock directly like:
diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c index 67ca7ac955a3..6881ddeb4360 100644 --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c @@ -766,13 +766,6 @@ int __xfrm_state_delete(struct xfrm_state *x) if (x->encap_sk) sock_put(rcu_dereference_raw(x->encap_sk));
xfrm_dev_state_delete(x);
/* All xfrm_state objects are created by xfrm_state_alloc.
* The xfrm_state_alloc call gives a reference, and that
* is what we are dropping here.
*/
err = 0; }xfrm_state_put(x);
@@ -787,8 +780,20 @@ int xfrm_state_delete(struct xfrm_state *x) spin_lock_bh(&x->lock); err = __xfrm_state_delete(x); spin_unlock_bh(&x->lock);
- if (err)
return err;
- return err;
- if (x->km.state == XFRM_STATE_DEAD) {
xfrm_dev_state_delete(x);
/* All xfrm_state objects are created by xfrm_state_alloc.
* The xfrm_state_alloc call gives a reference, and that
* is what we are dropping here.
*/
xfrm_state_put(x);
- }
- return 0;
} EXPORT_SYMBOL(xfrm_state_delete);
Hi Jianbo,
I talked with Sabrina and it looks we can't simply do this. Because both xfrm_add_sa_expire() and xfrm_timer_handler() calling __xfrm_state_delete() under spin lock. If we move the xfrm_dev_state_delete() out of __xfrm_state_delete(), all the places need to be handled correctly.
At the same time xfrm_timer_handler() calling xfrm_dev_state_update_stats before __xfrm_state_delete(). Should we also take care of it to make sure the state change and delete are called at the same time?
Hi Steffen, do you have any comments?
Thanks Hangbin