2017-06-09 16:43 GMT+08:00 Xin Long <lucien....@gmail.com>: > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Steffen Klassert > <steffen.klass...@secunet.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 04:23:01PM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote: >>> Hi Steffen, >>> >>> BTW, If we put the check in xfrm_policy_flush(), we can prevent it earlier. >>> But If we put the check in flow_cache_percpu_empty(), we can prevent >>> other functions set fc->percpu to NULL, although not much possible : ) >>> >>> So I'm not quite sure whether we should put the check in >>> flow_cache_percpu_empty() or in xfrm_policy_flush(). >> >> Can't we just call xfrm_policy_fini() first and then flow_cache_fini()?
Yes, that would be easy fix. I have been thinking about that. But if we change the order in xfrm_net_exit(), do we also need to change the order in xfrm_net_init()? That would change a lot. If no need, that would be good. >> > That would be a better fix. seems safe as what flow_cache_fini does > is only to free fcp->hash_table and stop timer, I didn't see it has > any dependence on xfrm_policy stuff. I'm not familiar about this part. So not sure about the influence if we free the flow cache after xfrm_policy_fini(). I need do some test first. I would also be appreciate if you or some one could make sure if it doesn't influence anything. Thanks Hangbin
