netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next V2 07/17] net/mlx5: Add MACsec offload Tx command support

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 15 Sep 2022 10:44:37 +0530
From:   sundeep subbaraya <sundeep.lkml@...il.com>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Cc:     Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>, liorna@...dia.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
        Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>, antoine.tenart@...tlin.com,
        Subbaraya Sundeep <sbhatta@...vell.com>, naveenm@...vell.com,
        Sunil Kovvuri Goutham <sgoutham@...vell.com>,
        Geetha sowjanya <gakula@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2 07/17] net/mlx5: Add MACsec offload Tx command support

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 2:08 AM Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com> wrote:
>
> On 14 Sep 20:09, sundeep subbaraya wrote:
> >Hi Saeed and Lior,
> >
> >Your mdo_ops can fail in the commit phase and do not validate input
> >params in the prepare phase.
> >Is that okay? I am developing MACSEC offload driver for Marvell CN10K
>
> It's ok since i think there is no reason to have the two steps system ! it
> doesn't make any sense to me ! prepare and commit are invoked consecutively
> one after the other for all mdo_ops and in every offload flow, with no extra
> step in between! so it's totally redundant.
>
> when i reviewed the series initially i was hesitant to check params
> on prepare step but i didn't see any reason since commit can still fail in
> the firmware anyways and there is nothing we can do about it !

Yes, same with us where messages sent to the AF driver can fail in the
commit phase.

> so we've decide to keep all the flows in one context for better readability
> and since the prepare/commit phases are confusing.
>
Okay. I will do the whole init in the prepare phase only and return 0
in the commit phase.

> >and I had to write some clever code
> >to honour that :). Please someone help me understand why two phase
> >init was needed for offloading.
> >
>
> I don't know, let's ask the original author, Antoine ?
> CC: Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>

Thanks. I added antoine.tenart@...tlin.com in my previous mail but bounced back.

Sundeep
>
>