netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 3/3] nfp: implement xfrm callbacks and expose ipsec offload feature to upper layer

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: <Y2tkJjdLLSWyTO3l@unreal>
Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2022 10:26:14 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Yinjun Zhang <yinjun.zhang@...igine.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Chengtian Liu <chengtian.liu@...igine.com>,
        HuanHuan Wang <huanhuan.wang@...igine.com>,
        Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        oss-drivers <oss-drivers@...igine.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 3/3] nfp: implement xfrm callbacks and expose
 ipsec offload feature to upper layer

On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 06:58:44AM +0000, Yinjun Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 08:14:12 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 12:02:48PM +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> <...>
> > > +
> > > +	/* General */
> > > +	switch (x->props.mode) {
> > > +	case XFRM_MODE_TUNNEL:
> > > +		cfg->ctrl_word.mode = NFP_IPSEC_PROTMODE_TUNNEL;
> > > +		break;
> > > +	case XFRM_MODE_TRANSPORT:
> > > +		cfg->ctrl_word.mode = NFP_IPSEC_PROTMODE_TRANSPORT;
> > > +		break;
> > > +	default:
> > > +		nn_err(nn, "Unsupported mode for xfrm offload\n");
> > 
> > There are no other modes.
> 
> Sorry this comment was neglected, but I have to say this is a good practice to avoid
> newly introduced mode in future sneaking into HW while it's not supported.

There is a subtitle difference between not-existent flows and
not-supported ones. Good practice is to rely on upper level API to do
the right thing from the beginning.

Thanks