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:   Fri, 02 Jul 2021 14:26:24 -0700
From:   Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
To:     Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, vfalico@...il.com,
        andy@...yhouse.net, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
        anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, jarod@...hat.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 6/8] bonding: disallow setting nested bonding + ipsec offload

Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com> wrote:

[...]
>@@ -479,8 +481,9 @@ static bool bond_ipsec_offload_ok(struct sk_buff *skb, struct xfrm_state *xs)
> 	if (BOND_MODE(bond) != BOND_MODE_ACTIVEBACKUP)
> 		return true;

	Not a question about this patch, but isn't the "return true"
above incorrect (i.e., should return false)?  I understand that the
ipsec offload is only available for active-backup mode, but the test
above will return true for all modes other than active-backup.

	-J

>-	if (!(slave_dev->xfrmdev_ops
>-	      && slave_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_offload_ok)) {
>+	if (!slave_dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
>+	    !slave_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_offload_ok ||
>+	    netif_is_bond_master(slave_dev)) {
> 		slave_warn(bond_dev, slave_dev, "%s: no slave xdo_dev_offload_ok\n", __func__);
> 		return false;
> 	}
>-- 
>2.17.1
>

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@...onical.com

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ