Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[IPSEC\]\:\s+Kill\s+nested\s+read\s+lock\s+by\s+deleting\s+xfrm_init

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[IPSEC\]\:\s+Kill\s+nested\s+read\s+lock\s+by\s+deleting\s+xfrm_init_tempsel\s*$/: 22 ]

Total 22 documents matching your query.

1. [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 10:49:56 +1000; Hi Dave: Actually I only signed off on the first patch :) The second patch creates a dead lock since it does a nested read lock. The solution is simply to get rid of xfrm_init_tempsel and call the af; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00047.html (11,782 bytes)
2. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 17:20:07 -0800; read locks nest even in the presence of pending writers; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00049.html (10,184 bytes)
3. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 12:09:47 +1000; Doh! I should've read the code first :) It's still a valid clean-up patch though. There is another reason why it won't dead lock. We don't actually ever hold the write lock on afinfo :) Is there any; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00057.html (11,181 bytes)
4. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:48:17 +0200; because I need it for xfrm resolution. There is another reason why it won't dead lock. We don't actually ever hold the write lock on afinfo :) Is there any reason why we dont't just use xfrm_state_af; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00114.html (13,730 bytes)
5. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:39:18 +1000; Why not just use daddr? It's always guaranteed to be correct. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00216.html (10,865 bytes)
6. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:01:38 +0200; Herbert Xu wrote: On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 06:48:17PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: Agreed. There is also a bug in my patch, tmpl->daddr can be 0 in which case the daddr passed as an argument to xfrm_; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00263.html (11,854 bytes)
7. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:21:55 +1000; Thanks. Just one more issue that I can think of, the check should only be done when tmpl->id.spi != 0. Otherwise the presence of valid states with differing state selectors will prevent new sessions; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00277.html (11,082 bytes)
8. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:35:26 -0700; ED rc =; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00723.html (11,001 bytes)
9. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: @xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:52:55 +1000; s Chas.; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00728.html (11,247 bytes)
10. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:53:43 +0200; ://gond; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00729.html (12,403 bytes)
11. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: kin <proski@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:13:31 -0700; r). Tha; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg00751.html (10,950 bytes)
12. [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 10:49:56 +1000; Hi Dave: Actually I only signed off on the first patch :) The second patch creates a dead lock since it does a nested read lock. The solution is simply to get rid of xfrm_init_tempsel and call the af; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01183.html (12,407 bytes)
13. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 17:20:07 -0800; read locks nest even in the presence of pending writers; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01185.html (10,759 bytes)
14. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 12:09:47 +1000; Doh! I should've read the code first :) It's still a valid clean-up patch though. There is another reason why it won't dead lock. We don't actually ever hold the write lock on afinfo :) Is there any; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01193.html (11,787 bytes)
15. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:48:17 +0200; Agreed. There is also a bug in my patch, tmpl->daddr can be 0 in which case the daddr passed as an argument to xfrm_state_find() will be used. My patch only checked tmpl->daddr, this patch fixes it.; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01250.html (14,321 bytes)
16. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:39:18 +1000; Why not just use daddr? It's always guaranteed to be correct. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gondor; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01352.html (11,396 bytes)
17. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 22:01:38 +0200; Agreed. There is also a bug in my patch, tmpl->daddr can be 0 in which case the daddr passed as an argument to xfrm_state_find() will be used. My patch only checked tmpl->daddr, this patch fixes it.; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01399.html (12,347 bytes)
18. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 12:21:55 +1000; Thanks. Just one more issue that I can think of, the check should only be done when tmpl->id.spi != 0. Otherwise the presence of valid states with differing state selectors will prevent new sessions; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01413.html (11,557 bytes)
19. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:35:26 -0700; Is it really worthwhile, right now, to change that tmpl->id.daddr to daddr? That seems to be all that Patrick's most recent patch does.; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01859.html (11,467 bytes)
20. Re: [IPSEC]: Kill nested read lock by deleting xfrm_init_tempsel (score: 1): Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:52:55 +1000; Yes, because tmpl->id.daddr can be zero when daddr is not zero. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Home Page: http://gond; /archives/netdev/2005-04/msg01864.html (11,694 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]