linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net V2 2/3] net: tls: Cancel RX async resync request on rdc

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aPoscT48Xg6RqOvC@krikkit>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 15:24:01 +0200
From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
To: Shahar Shitrit <shshitrit@...dia.com>
Cc: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
	Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net V2 2/3] net: tls: Cancel RX async resync request on
 rdc_delta overflow

2025-10-23, 13:44:54 +0300, Shahar Shitrit wrote:
> On 22/10/2025 15:47, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > 2025-10-22, 14:38:17 +0300, Shahar Shitrit wrote:
> >> On 21/10/2025 18:28, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> >>> 2025-10-20, 10:05:53 +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> >>>> Fixes: 138559b9f99d ("net/tls: Fix wrong record sn in async mode of device resync")
> >>>
> >>> The patch itself looks good, but what issue is fixed within this
> >>> patch? The helper will be useful in the next patch, but right now
> >>> we're only resetting the resync_async status. The only change I see
> >>> (without patch 3) is that we won't call tls_device_rx_resync_async()
> >>> next time we decrypt a record in SW, but it wouldn't have done
> >>> anything.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, also in patch 1/3, there is no "fix" is in that patch.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I agree about patch 1/3 so I'll remove the fixes tag.
> >>
> >> For this patch, indeed at this point the WARN() was already fired,
> >> however, the bug being addressed is the unnecessary work the TLS module
> >> continues to do. For my liking, the wasted CPU cycles and resources
> >> alone justify the fix, even if we've already issued a warning.
> >> What do you think?
> > 
> > Is there any work being done/avoided other than calling
> > tls_device_rx_resync_async and returning immediately?
> > 
> > With or without the patch, tls_device_rx_resync_new_rec will be called
> > during stream parsing.
> > 
> > Currently, resync_async->req doesn't get reset so we'll call
> > tls_device_rx_resync_async. We're still in async phase, rcd_delta is
> > still USHRT_MAX, and we're done, tls_device_rx_resync_new_rec returns.
> > 
> > With the patch, we'll see that resync_async->req is 0 and avoid
> > calling tls_device_rx_resync_async.
> > 
> > Did I miss something else?
> > 
> My bad, you are right. The unnecessary work the invocation of
> tls_device_rx_resync_async.
> OK so there are some options; I can either simply remove the fixes tag
> and leave the patch as is, or I can also remove the call to
> tls_offload_rx_resync_async_request_cancel() at that point so the patch
> only introduces the helper (and then submit a patch to net-next that
> adds the call to tls_offload_rx_resync_async_request_cancel when
> rcd_delta == USHRT_MAX to improve the behavior).
> 
> what do you think it's the best to do?

I'd leave the patch as is, just without the Fixes tag.

With the Subject typo fixed and the Fixes tag removed:
Reviewed-by: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>

-- 
Sabrina