On Fri, 22 May 2020 02:02:10 +0530 Vinay Kumar Yadav wrote:
> When writer reads pending == 0,
> that means completion is already called complete().
> its okay writer to initialize completion. When writer reads pending == 1,
> that means writer is going to wait for completion.
>
> This way, writer
From: Vinay Kumar Yadav
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 01:54:25 +0530
> I am explaining that your scenario is covered in this fix.
Please change your commit message to be more readable in this way,
thank you.
Jakub
On 5/22/2020 12:26 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2020 14:28:27 +0530 Vinay Kumar Yadav wrote:
Considering the lock in fix ("pending" is local variable), when writer reads
pending == 0 [pending = atomic_read(&ctx->encrypt_pending); --> from
tls_sw_sendmsg()],
that means encrypt
On Thu, 21 May 2020 14:28:27 +0530 Vinay Kumar Yadav wrote:
> Considering the lock in fix ("pending" is local variable), when writer reads
> pending == 0 [pending = atomic_read(&ctx->encrypt_pending); --> from
> tls_sw_sendmsg()],
> that means encrypt complete() [from tls_encrypt_done()] is alread
Jakub
On 5/21/2020 1:28 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2020 22:39:11 +0530 Vinay Kumar Yadav wrote:
On 5/20/2020 12:46 AM, David Miller wrote:
From: Vinay Kumar Yadav
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 13:13:27 +0530
+ spin_lock_bh(&ctx->encrypt_compl_lock);
+ pe
On Wed, 20 May 2020 22:39:11 +0530 Vinay Kumar Yadav wrote:
> On 5/20/2020 12:46 AM, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Vinay Kumar Yadav
> > Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 13:13:27 +0530
> >
> >> + spin_lock_bh(&ctx->encrypt_compl_lock);
> >> + pending = atomic_read(&ctx->encrypt_pending);
David
On 5/20/2020 12:46 AM, David Miller wrote:
From: Vinay Kumar Yadav
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 13:13:27 +0530
+ spin_lock_bh(&ctx->encrypt_compl_lock);
+ pending = atomic_read(&ctx->encrypt_pending);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&ctx->encrypt_compl_lock);
The s
From: Vinay Kumar Yadav
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 13:13:27 +0530
> + spin_lock_bh(&ctx->encrypt_compl_lock);
> + pending = atomic_read(&ctx->encrypt_pending);
> + spin_unlock_bh(&ctx->encrypt_compl_lock);
The sequence:
lock();
x = p->y;
u
tls_sw_recvmsg() and tls_decrypt_done() can be run concurrently.
consider the scenario tls_decrypt_done() is about to run complete()
and tls_sw_recvmsg() completed reinit_completion() then tls_decrypt_done()
runs complete(). This sequence of execution results in wrong
completion (ctx->async_wait.co
