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: <Y05HeGnTKBY0RVI4@unreal>
Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2022 09:28:08 +0300
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Mark Starovoytov <mstarovoitov@...vell.com>,
        Igor Russkikh <irusskikh@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/5] macsec: offload-related fixes

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 04:03:56PM +0200, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> Quoting Leon Romanovsky (2022-10-14 13:03:57)
> > 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
> > 
> > > 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 was looking at this and the series LGTM. I don't get the above
> concern, can you clarify?
> 
> If a lower device has both IPsec & MACsec offload capabilities:
> 
> - Without the revert: IPsec can be offloaded to the lower dev, MACsec
>   can't. That's a bug.

And how does it possible that mlx5 macsec offload work?

> 
> - With the revert: IPsec and MACsec can be offloaded to the lower dev.
>   Some features might not propagate to the MACsec dev, which won't allow
>   some performance optimizations in the MACsec data path.

My concern is related to this sentence: "it's not possible to offload macsec
to lower devices that also support ipsec offload", because our devices support
both macsec and IPsec offloads at the same time.

I don't want to see anything (even in commit messages) that assumes that IPsec
offload doesn't exist.

Thanks

> 
> Thanks,
> Antoine