netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH next-queue 0/8] ixgbe/ixgbevf: IPsec offload support for VFs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 16 Aug 2018 14:15:12 -0700
From:   Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:     Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@...cle.com>
Cc:     intel-wired-lan <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
        Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH next-queue 0/8] ixgbe/ixgbevf: IPsec
 offload support for VFs

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:10 AM Shannon Nelson
<shannon.nelson@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/14/2018 8:30 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:43 AM Shannon Nelson
> > <shannon.nelson@...cle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> This set of patches implements IPsec hardware offload for VF devices in
> >> Intel's 10Gbe x540 family of Ethernet devices.
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > So the one question I would have about this patch set is what happens
> > if you are setting up a ipsec connection between the PF and one of the
> > VFs on the same port/function? Do the ipsec offloads get translated
> > across the Tx loopback or do they end up causing issues? Specifically
> > I would be interested in seeing the results of a test either between
> > two VFs, or the PF and one of the VFs on the same port.
> >
> > - Alex
> >
>
> There is definitely something funky in the internal switch connection,
> as messages going from PF to VF with an offloaded encryption don't seem
> to get received by the VF, at least when in a VEB setup.  If I only set
> up offloads on the Rx on both PF and VF, and don't offload the Tx, then
> things work.
>
> I don't have a setup to test this, but I suspect that in a VEPA
> configuration, with packets going out to the switch and turned around
> back in, the Tx encryption offload would happen as expected.
>
> sln

We should probably look at adding at least one patch to the set then
that disables IPsec Tx offload if SR-IOV is enabled with VEB so that
we don't end up breaking connections should a VF be migrated from a
remote system to a local one that it is connected to.

- Alex