netdev - Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 09/10] bonding: fill IPsec state validation failure reason

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y895KXqtQgXOytj1@unreal>
Date:   Tue, 24 Jan 2023 08:22:33 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, oss-drivers@...igine.com,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Raju Rangoju <rajur@...lsio.com>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        Ayush Sawal <ayush.sawal@...lsio.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH net-next 09/10] bonding: fill IPsec
 state validation failure reason

On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 03:01:32PM -0800, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
> Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> >From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> >
> >Rely on extack to return failure reason.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> >Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
> >---
> > drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> >index 686b2a6fd674..00646aa315c3 100644
> >--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> >+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> >@@ -444,7 +444,7 @@ static int bond_ipsec_add_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs,
> > 	if (!slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
> > 	    !slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add ||
> > 	    netif_is_bond_master(slave->dev)) {
> >-		slave_warn(bond_dev, slave->dev, "Slave does not support ipsec offload\n");
> >+		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Slave does not support ipsec offload");
> > 		rcu_read_unlock();
> > 		return -EINVAL;
> > 	}
> 
> 	Why only this one, and not include the other similar
> slave_warn() calls in the bond_ipsec_* functions?  

Which functions did you have in mind?

The extack was added to XFRM .xdo_dev_state_add() call, which is
translated to bond_ipsec_add_sa() with only one slave_warn() print.

If you are talking about bond_ipsec_add_sa_all(), that function isn't
directly connected to netlink and doesn't have extack pointer to fill.

If you are talking about bond_ipsec_del_sai*() and slave_warn() there, it
will be better to be deleted/changed to make sure what ipsec_list have
only valid devices.

Thanks


> That would seem to make some failures show up in dmesg,
> and others returned to the caller via extack.
> 
> 	-J
> 
> ---
> 	-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@...onical.com