netdev - Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v7 4/8] xfrm: add TX datapath support for IPsec packet offload mode

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]

Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2022 11:23:10 +0100
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
CC:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v7 4/8] xfrm: add TX datapath support for IPsec
 packet offload mode

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 02:32:10PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 12:59:39PM +0100, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 02:54:32PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> > 
> > > @@ -2708,6 +2710,23 @@ static struct dst_entry *xfrm_bundle_create(struct xfrm_policy *policy,
> > >  	if (!dev)
> > >  		goto free_dst;
> > >  
> > > +	dst1 = &xdst0->u.dst;
> > > +	/* Packet offload: both policy and SA should be offloaded */
> > > +	if ((policy->xdo.type == XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET &&
> > > +	     dst1->xfrm->xso.type != XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET) ||
> > > +	    (policy->xdo.type != XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET &&
> > > +	     dst1->xfrm->xso.type == XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET)) {
> > > +		err = -EINVAL;
> > > +		goto free_dst;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	/* Packet offload: both policy and SA should have same device */
> > > +	if (policy->xdo.type == XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET &&
> > > +	    policy->xdo.dev != dst1->xfrm->xso.dev) {
> > > +		err = -EINVAL;
> > > +		goto free_dst;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > 
> > This is the wrong place for these checks. Things went already wrong
> > in the lookup if policy and state do not match here.
> 
> Where do you think we should put such checks?

You need to create a new lookup key for this and match the policies
template against the TS of the state. This happens in xfrm_state_find.
Unfortunately this affects also the SW datapath even without HW
policies/states. So please try to make it a NOP if there are no HW
policies/states.