[Top] [All Lists]

Re: take 2-2 WAS(Re: PATCH: IPSEC xfrm events

To: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: take 2-2 WAS(Re: PATCH: IPSEC xfrm events
From: Masahide NAKAMURA <nakam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:35:47 +0900
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kaber@xxxxxxxxx, netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1112654575.1089.17.camel@jzny.localdomain>
References: <1112406164.1088.54.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <1112469601.1088.173.camel@jzny.localdomain> <1112538718.1096.394.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <1112614706.1096.439.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <1112619096.1088.473.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <1112620614.1088.489.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <1112653217.1088.2.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <1112654575.1089.17.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050116)
Hello Jamal,

jamal wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 18:25, David S. Miller wrote:
>>If you only take write_lock() from process context, only the write_lock()'s
>>need BH disabling.  read_lock() takers can then nest arbitrarily, BH or not.
> Ok, never mind - Ive made the change. 
> As soon as Masahide tests i will post the final patch.

I've tested normal cases below with the latest patch and it works fine.
I think you can go ahead.

tested cases:
  o netlink (using iproute2 "ip xfrm monitor" to confirm it)
    - add/del/flush/expire for SA/SP
    - acquire,allocspi,update for SA
    - update for SP
  o pfkey
    - running racoon
  o both sockets
    - running racoon with using "ip xfrm monitor".



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>