netdev - Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v9 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]

Message-ID: <Y4o9As2tt5RxoDgP@unreal>
Date:   Fri, 2 Dec 2022 19:59:30 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
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,
        Bharat Bhushan <bbhushan2@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v9 4/8] xfrm: add TX datapath support for IPsec
 packet offload mode

On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 10:30:28AM +0100, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 01:18:14PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> > 
> > In IPsec packet mode, the device is going to encrypt and encapsulate
> > packets that are associated with offloaded policy. After successful
> > policy lookup to indicate if packets should be offloaded or not,
> > the stack forwards packets to the device to do the magic.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Huy Nguyen <huyn@...dia.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> > ---
> >  net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c |  15 +++++-
> >  net/xfrm/xfrm_output.c |  12 ++++-
> >  net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c  | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  3 files changed, 141 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> ...
> > @@ -1161,7 +1240,31 @@ xfrm_state_find(const xfrm_address_t *daddr, const xfrm_address_t *saddr,
> >  			x = NULL;
> >  			goto out;
> >  		}
> > -
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD
> > +		if (pol->xdo.type == XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET) {
> > +			struct xfrm_dev_offload *xdo = &pol->xdo;
> > +			struct xfrm_dev_offload *xso = &x->xso;
> > +
> > +			xso->type = XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET;
> > +			xso->dir = xdo->dir;
> > +			xso->dev = xdo->dev;
> > +			xso->real_dev = xdo->real_dev;
> > +			netdev_tracker_alloc(xso->dev, &xso->dev_tracker,
> > +					     GFP_ATOMIC);
> > +			error = xso->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add(x);
> > +			if (error) {
> > +				xso->dir = 0;
> > +				netdev_put(xso->dev, &xso->dev_tracker);
> > +				xso->dev = NULL;
> > +				xso->real_dev = NULL;
> > +				xso->type = XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_UNSPECIFIED;
> > +				x->km.state = XFRM_STATE_DEAD;
> > +				to_put = x;
> > +				x = NULL;
> > +				goto out;
> > +			}
> > +		}
> > +#endif
> >  		if (km_query(x, tmpl, pol) == 0) {
> >  			spin_lock_bh(&net->xfrm.xfrm_state_lock);
> >  			x->km.state = XFRM_STATE_ACQ;
> > @@ -1185,6 +1288,17 @@ xfrm_state_find(const xfrm_address_t *daddr, const xfrm_address_t *saddr,
> >  			xfrm_hash_grow_check(net, x->bydst.next != NULL);
> >  			spin_unlock_bh(&net->xfrm.xfrm_state_lock);
> >  		} else {
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_XFRM_OFFLOAD
> > +			struct xfrm_dev_offload *xso = &x->xso;
> > +
> > +			if (xso->type == XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_PACKET) {
> > +				xso->dir = 0;
> > +				netdev_put(xso->dev, &xso->dev_tracker);
> > +				xso->dev = NULL;
> > +				xso->real_dev = NULL;
> > +				xso->type = XFRM_DEV_OFFLOAD_UNSPECIFIED;
> > +			}
> 
> You do a xdo_dev_state_add call to add an acquire state to HW above.
> Maybe we should do a xdo_dev_state_del call here when deleting the
> acquire state.

Absolutely. Thanks

> 
> > +#endif
> >  			x->km.state = XFRM_STATE_DEAD;
> >  			to_put = x;
> >  			x = NULL;
> > -- 
> > 2.38.1