[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC: IPSEC patch 0 for netlink events

To: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RFC: IPSEC patch 0 for netlink events
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:55:18 +1000
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>, Masahide NAKAMURA <nakam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <1111950449.1089.938.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1111864971.1092.904.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050326194707.GA9872@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111867875.1089.915.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050327081848.GA13428@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1111950449.1089.938.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Hi Jamal:

On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 02:07:29PM -0500, jamal wrote:
> @@ -478,6 +491,9 @@
>       if (x1->km.state == XFRM_STATE_ACQ) {
>               __xfrm_state_insert(x);
> +             /* XXXX: We already have xfrm_state_lock
> +              * do we need to grab x->lock as well? */
> +             xfrm_sa_notify(x, c, XFRM_SA_ADDED);

Actually, this shouldn't be here at all.

Calls to xfrm_sa_notify (better to call it km_state_notify for
consistency) should be made from the places where we currently
call pfkey_broadcast and the corresponding locations in xfrm_user.

Visit Openswan at
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Home Page:
PGP Key:

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