Subject: Re: xfrm_state locking regression...

From: Timo Teräs <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:45:01 +0300

Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 08:07:33AM +0300, Timo Teräs wrote:
>> Right. Also alternatively the xfrm_state_all could be protected
>> by a different lock than xfrm_state_lock.
> 
> Yes that's a good idea.  Here's a patch to do that for states.
> I'm still thinking about whether policy destruction should be
> restructured or not so I'm not patching that.
> 
> ipsec: Move state dump list unlinking into GC
> 
> This patch moves the unlinking of x->all (for dumping) into the
> GC and changes the lock to xfrm_cfg_mutex.

Shouldn't this also change the locking in all places where
x->all is used?