netdev - Re: [PATCH net 0/5] macsec: offload-related fixes

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: <Y0l15J6AVN75k+wO@hog>
Date:   Fri, 14 Oct 2022 16:44:52 +0200
From:   Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>,
        Mark Starovoytov <mstarovoitov@...vell.com>,
        Igor Russkikh <irusskikh@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/5] macsec: offload-related fixes

2022-10-14, 14:03:57 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 09:43:45AM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > 2022-10-14, 09:13:39 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 04:15:38PM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > > > I'm working on a dummy offload for macsec on netdevsim. It just has a
> > > > small SecY and RXSC table so I can trigger failures easily on the
> > > > ndo_* side. It has exposed a couple of issues.
> > > > 
> > > > The first patch will cause some performance degradation, but in the
> > > > current state it's not possible to offload macsec to lower devices
> > > > that also support ipsec offload. 
> > > 
> > > Please don't, IPsec offload is available and undergoing review.
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/cover.1662295929.git.leonro@nvidia.com/
> > > 
> > > This is whole series (XFRM + driver) for IPsec full offload.
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/leon/linux-rdma.git/log/?h=xfrm-next
> > 
> > Yes, and that's not upstream yet. 
> 
> For this conversation, you can assume what that series is merged.
> It is not merged due to request to change how we store XFRM policies
> in XFRM core code.
> 
> > That patchset is also doing nothing to address the issue I'm refering
> > to here, where xfrm_api_check rejects the macsec device because it has
> > the NETIF_F_HW_ESP flag (passed from the lower device) and no xfrmdev_ops.
> 
> Of course, why do you think that IPsec series should address MACsec bugs?

I don't. That's why I really don't understand how the "full offload"
series is relevant for this patchset.

-- 
Sabrina