Re: [IPSEC]: Protect against BHs in xfrm_user_policy()

[Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:20:40AM +1000, herbert wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 06:13:01PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >
> > # This is a BitKeeper generated diff -Nru style patch.
> > #
> > # ChangeSet
> > #   2005/04/03 17:36:10+02:00 kaber@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> > #   [IPSEC]: Protect against BHs in xfrm_user_policy()
> > #   
> > #   Signed-off-by: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Looks good.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Actually, I now think this patch is unnecessary for mainline.

The read_lock()'s only need to be protected from the write_lock()'s.

Since all the write_lock()'s are made in process context, we don't
need to disable BH on the read_lock()'s.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt