netdev - Re: mlx5 stable backport help

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: <CAJ3xEMiXLmoGtvJC2A0V0a+JthYCiyGwM7VCOcWF25pFz7JWwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:13:21 +0200
From:   Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Cc:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
        Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: mlx5 stable backport help

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 12:35 AM Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 12:21 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:

> So we all agree that the offending patch is "net/mlx5e: Support tunnel
> encap over tagged Ethernet" even if the issue existed before,

as you said the issue existed before we added support for offloading
tunnels in the presence of vlan on the underlay, it's like this since 4.12
when we introduced support for neigh update in 232c001398ae "net/mlx5e:
Add support to neighbour update flow" which is basically the one to blame/fix

since some code was moved and some code was added (e->route_dev)
backporting the patch without pulling more patches can be done as I sketched
below.

Anyway, we can maybe let it go without backporting, production environments
are typically not changing their source mac in prime time. So this can be seen
more as future proofing.

> in order to fix the issue you will have to port not only this patch but
> the whole series which claimed to fix the issue, so the fixes tag was
> wrong.. this patch on its own is no good.

>> [1] using  e->out_dev instead of e->route_dev
>> [2] use the hunks from mlx5e_tc_tun_create_header_ipv4/6() in
>> mlx5e_create_encap_header_ipv4/6()