[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220523083349.zzgdmoq2bzstxla6@lion.mk-sys.cz>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 10:33:49 +0200
From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To: Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@...as.ac.cn>
Cc: steffen.klassert@...unet.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: REGRESSION (?) (Re: [PATCH] net: af_key: add check for
pfkey_broadcast in function pfkey_process)
On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 04:24:38AM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> After upgrading from 5.18-rc7 to 5.18 final, my racoon daemon refuses to
> start because it cannot find some algorithms (it says "aes"). I have not
> finished the debugging completely but this patch, mainline commit
> 4dc2a5a8f675 ("net: af_key: add check for pfkey_broadcast in function
> pfkey_process"), seems to be the most promising candidate.
Tested now, reverting commit 4dc2a5a8f675 ("net: af_key: add check for
pfkey_broadcast in function pfkey_process") seems to fix the issue,
after rebuilding the af_key module with this commit reverted and
reloading it, racoon daemon starts and works and /proc/crypto shows
algrorithms it did not without the revert.
We might get away with changing the test to
if (err && err != -ESRCH)
return err;
but I'm not sure if bailing up on failed notification broadcast is
really what we want. Also, most other calling sites of pfkey_broadcast()
do not check the return value either so if we want to add the check, it
should probably be done more consistently. So for now, a revert is IMHO
more appropriate.
Michal
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists