On Tue, 2007-01-16 at 13:07 -0600, Venkat Yekkirala wrote:
> > > > We jump to the fail without releasing the lock.
> > > > Instead of a "fail", how about just breaking from the loop
> > > > and falling through to release lock and return...
> > >
> > > Sure. That should work too. Thanks.
> >
> > Also, you would have to make sure pol is set to NULL
> > in this case.
>
> I see lspp63 could use the following patch that does the
> above:
>
> --- linux-2.6.18.i386.old/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c 2007-01-16
> 10:36:23.000000000 -0600
> +++ linux-2.6.18.i386/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c 2007-01-16
> 10:36:59.000000000 -0600
> @@ -627,9 +627,11 @@ static int xfrm_policy_lookup(struct flo
> xfrm_pol_hold(pol);
> break;
> } else if (ret == -ESRCH)
> - ret = 0;
> - else
> + ret = 0;
> + else {
> + pol = NULL;
> break;
> + }
> }
> }
> read_unlock_bh(&xfrm_policy_lock);
I haven't looked at the caller to xfrm_policy_lookup, but does it
actually use the value that might be set if it gets an error? aka does
it really matter? I'll check it in a bit.
-Eric
--
redhat-lspp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-lspp
