Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751438AbeAEKbo (ORCPT <rfc822;ralf@linux-mips.org> + 1 other);
        Fri, 5 Jan 2018 05:31:44 -0500
Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([62.96.220.36]:48162 "EHLO a.mx.secunet.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750985AbeAEKbm (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 5 Jan 2018 05:31:42 -0500
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 11:31:39 +0100
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
CC: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfrm: Use __skb_queue_tail in xfrm_trans_queue
Message-ID: <20180105103139.2nh7dkszrmzatusv@gauss3.secunet.de>
References: <20180104103628.9461-1-asavkov@redhat.com>
 <20180104110132.GA6256@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <20180104112026.436rgqaeokcden4r@shodan.usersys.redhat.com>
 <20180104112507.GB6437@gondor.apana.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180104112507.GB6437@gondor.apana.org.au>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
X-G-Data-MailSecurity-for-Exchange-State: 0
X-G-Data-MailSecurity-for-Exchange-Error: 0
X-G-Data-MailSecurity-for-Exchange-Sender: 23
X-G-Data-MailSecurity-for-Exchange-Server: d65e63f7-5c15-413f-8f63-c0d707471c93
X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: 2c86f778-e09b-4440-8b15-867914633a10
X-G-Data-MailSecurity-for-Exchange-Guid: E0551E16-165A-4FBA-BA1E-9EEDB38AE389
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 10:25:07PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 12:20:26PM +0100, Artem Savkov wrote:
> 
> > Right, thats a better solution.
> > 
> > Reported-and-tested-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> But I just realised that this patch is based on my dirty tree.
> So here is a rebased version:
> 
> ---8<---
> We do not need locking in xfrm_trans_queue because it is designed
> to use per-CPU buffers.  However, the original code incorrectly
> used skb_queue_tail which takes the lock.  This patch switches
> it to __skb_queue_tail instead.
> 
> Reported-and-tested-by: Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com>
> Fixes: acf568ee859f ("xfrm: Reinject transport-mode packets...")
> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

Applied, thanks everyone!