On 1/9/2025 4:37 PM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 09:26:38AM +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote:
On 1/8/2025 3:14 PM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 11:40:05AM +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote:
On 1/8/2025 10:46 AM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 10:47:16AM +0000, Hangbin Liu wrote:
On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 11:33:34AM +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote:
Re-locking doesn't look great, glancing at the code I don't see any
obvious better workarounds. Easiest fix would be to don't let the
drivers sleep in the callbacks and then we can go back to a spin lock.
Maybe nvidia people have better ideas, I'm not familiar with this
offload.
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:
Yes. Not feasible?
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.
- */
- xfrm_state_put(x);
err = 0;
}
@@ -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);
Then why we need the spin lock in xfrm_state_delete?
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?
we need a new lock. Although it looks redundant. e.g.
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);
if (err)
return err;
another_lock(&x->other_lock)
if (x->km.state == XFRM_STATE_DEAD) {
xfrm_dev_state_delete(x);
xfrm_state_put(x);
}
another_unlock(&x->other_lock)
return 0;
}
bond_ipsec_del_sa(). Anything I missed?
The unlock spin lock in bond_ipsec_del_sa looks like
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Z1vfsAyuxcohT7th@fedora/
Thanks
Hangbin
