netdev - Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v2 0/6] Extend XFRM core to allow full offload configuration

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]

Message-ID: <20220822083443.GH2602992@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 10:34:43 +0200
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
CC:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>,
        ipsec-devel <devel@...ux-ipsec.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v2 0/6] Extend XFRM core to allow full offload
 configuration

On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 04:26:39PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 12:09:30PM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > Hi Leon,
> > 
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 11:59:21AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> > > 
> > > Changelog:
> > > v2:
> > >  * Rebased to latest 6.0-rc1
> > >  * Add an extra check in TX datapath patch to validate packets before
> > >    forwarding to HW.
> > >  * Added policy cleanup logic in case of netdev down event 
> > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1652851393.git.leonro@nvidia.com 
> > >  * Moved comment to be before if (...) in third patch.
> > > v0: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1652176932.git.leonro@nvidia.com
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > > The following series extends XFRM core code to handle new type of IPsec
> > > offload - full offload.
> > > 
> > > In this mode, the HW is going to be responsible for whole data path, so
> > > both policy and state should be offloaded.
> > 
> > some general comments about the pachset:
> > 
> > As implemented, the software does not hold any state.
> > I.e. there is no sync between hardware and software
> > regarding stats, liftetime, lifebyte, packet counts
> > and replay window. IKE rekeying and auditing is based
> > on these, how should this be done?
> 
> This is only rough idea as we only started to implement needed
> support in libreswan, but our plan is to configure IKE with
> highest possible priority 

If it is only a rough idea, then mark it as RFC. I want to see
the whole picture before we merge it. And btw. tunnel mode
belongs to the whoule picture too.

> 
> > 
> > I have not seen anything that catches configurations
> > that stack multiple tunnels with the outer offloaded.
> > 
> > Where do we make sure that policy offloading device
> > is the same as the state offloading device?
> 
> It is configuration error and we don't check it. Should we?

We should at least make sure to not send out packets untransformed
in this case.