Hi Nathan,
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:07:10 -0700
Nathan Harold <nhar...@google.com> wrote:
> Allow UPDSA to change "set mark" to permit
> policy separation of packet routing decisions from
> SA keying in systems that use mark-based routing.
>
> The set mark, used as a routing and firewall mark
> for outbound packets, is made update-able which
> allows routing decisions to be handled independently
> of keying/SA creation. To maintain consistency with
> other optional attributes, the set mark is only
> updated if sent with a non-zero value.
>
> The per-SA lock and the xfrm_state_lock are taken in
> that order to avoid a deadlock with
> xfrm_timer_handler(), which also takes the locks in
> that order.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nathan Harold <nhar...@google.com>
> Change-Id: Ia05c6733a94c1901cd1e54eb7c7e237704678d71
> ---
> net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
> index e04a510ec992..c9ffcdfa89f6 100644
> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
> @@ -1562,6 +1562,15 @@ int xfrm_state_update(struct xfrm_state *x)
> if (x1->curlft.use_time)
> xfrm_state_check_expire(x1);
>
> + if (x->props.smark.m || x->props.smark.v) {
> + spin_lock_bh(&net->xfrm.xfrm_state_lock);
> +
> + x1->props.smark = x->props.smark;
> +
> + __xfrm_state_bump_genids(x1);
So I'm trying to wrap my head around this genid thing :)
If x1 points to a state previously found using __xfrm_state_locate(x),
won't __xfrm_state_bump_genids(x1) be equivalent to x1->genid++ in
this case?
Is it possible that other states will match all of x1 parameters?
Also, any idea why this isn't needed for other changes in the state?
Thanks!
Eyal.
