Hello,
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 11:23:51AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
</snip>
> >
> > we're working toward dropping the need for NET_LOCK before PF_LOCK. could
> > we try the diff below as a compromise?
> >
>
> sashan@ and mvs@ have pushed that forward, so this diff should be enough
> now.
>
looks good to me.
OK sashan
> Index: pf.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/net/pf.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.1153
> diff -u -p -r1.1153 pf.c
> --- pf.c 12 Nov 2022 02:48:14 -0000 1.1153
> +++ pf.c 24 Nov 2022 01:21:48 -0000
> @@ -1603,9 +1603,6 @@ pf_purge(void *null)
> {
> unsigned int interval = max(1, pf_default_rule.timeout[PFTM_INTERVAL]);
>
> - /* XXX is NET_LOCK necessary? */
> - NET_LOCK();
> -
> PF_LOCK();
>
> pf_purge_expired_src_nodes();
> @@ -1616,7 +1613,6 @@ pf_purge(void *null)
> * Fragments don't require PF_LOCK(), they use their own lock.
> */
> pf_purge_expired_fragments();
> - NET_UNLOCK();
>
> /* interpret the interval as idle time between runs */
> timeout_add_sec(&pf_purge_to, interval);
> @@ -1891,7 +1887,6 @@ pf_purge_expired_states(const unsigned i
> if (SLIST_EMPTY(&gcl))
> return (scanned);
>
> - NET_LOCK();
> rw_enter_write(&pf_state_list.pfs_rwl);
> PF_LOCK();
> PF_STATE_ENTER_WRITE();
> @@ -1904,7 +1899,6 @@ pf_purge_expired_states(const unsigned i
> PF_STATE_EXIT_WRITE();
> PF_UNLOCK();
> rw_exit_write(&pf_state_list.pfs_rwl);
> - NET_UNLOCK();
>
> while ((st = SLIST_FIRST(&gcl)) != NULL) {
> SLIST_REMOVE_HEAD(&gcl, gc_list);
>
