netdev - Re: pull-request: mlx5-next 2023-01-24 V2

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:   Wed, 8 Feb 2023 17:16:46 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pull-request: mlx5-next 2023-01-24 V2

On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 20:59:59 -0400 Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Who said IP configuration.  
> 
> Please explain to me your vision how we could do IPSEC in rdma and
> continue to use an IP address owned by netdev while netdev is also
> running IPSEC on the same IP address for netdev traffic.

I'm no expert on IPsec but AFAIK it doesn't treat the entire endpoint
as a single unit.

> I can't see how it is even technically possible.
> 
> Tell me how the NIC knows, on a packet by packet basis, if the IPSEC
> or IKE packet should be delivered to netdev or to RDMA.

Just a forwarding problem. Whether NIC matches on UDP port or ESP+SPI
programmed via some random API is a detail.


Could you please go back to answering the question of how we deliver
on the compromise that was established to merge the full xfrm offload?

There's only so much time I can spend circling the subject.