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  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]
Date:   Thu, 24 Sep 2020 10:15:39 +0530
From:   rohit maheshwari <rohitm@...lsio.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, secdev@...lsio.com
Subject: Re: [net-next 1/3] ch_ktls: Issue if connection offload fails


On 23/09/20 4:14 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 23:14:59 +0530 Rohit Maheshwari wrote:
>> Since driver first return success to tls_dev_add, if req to HW is
>> successful, but later if HW returns failure, that connection traffic
>> fails permanently and connection status remains unknown to stack.
>>
>> Fixes: 34aba2c45024 ("cxgb4/chcr : Register to tls add and del callback")
>> Signed-off-by: Rohit Maheshwari <rohitm@...lsio.com>
>>   #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6)
>>   	} else {
>> -		if (!sk->sk_ipv6only &&
>> -		    ipv6_addr_type(&sk->sk_v6_daddr) == IPV6_ADDR_MAPPED) {
>> -			tx_info->ip_family = AF_INET;
>> -			ret = chcr_ktls_act_open_req(sk, tx_info, atid);
>> -		} else {
>> -			tx_info->ip_family = AF_INET6;
>> -			ret = cxgb4_clip_get(tx_info->netdev,
>> -					     (const u32 *)
>> -					     &sk->sk_v6_rcv_saddr.s6_addr,
>> -					     1);
>> -			if (ret)
>> -				goto out;
>> -			ret = chcr_ktls_act_open_req6(sk, tx_info, atid);
>> -		}
>> +		ret = cxgb4_clip_get(tx_info->netdev, (const u32 *)
>> +				     &sk->sk_v6_rcv_saddr,
>> +				     1);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return ret;
>> +		ret = chcr_ktls_act_open_req6(sk, tx_info, atid);
> You removed the mapped socket handling which seems unrelated to the
> rest of the patch.

This mapped check is taken care in tls_dev_add, and this extra if

isn't needed anymore.

>> +	spin_lock(&tx_info->lock);
>> +	tx_info->conn_up = true;
>> +	spin_unlock(&tx_info->lock);
> What's the context this lock is taken in? You seem to always do only
> spin_lock(), does the control path not need to be _bh() or _irq()?
This conn_up isn't required anymore. I'll remove this.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists