[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230215111020.0c843384@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 11:10:20 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Vadim Fedorenko <vfedorenko@...ek.ru>,
Frantisek Krenzelok <fkrenzel@...hat.com>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>,
Apoorv Kothari <apoorvko@...zon.com>,
Boris Pismenny <borisp@...dia.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/5] tls: implement key updates for TLS1.3
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 18:29:50 +0100 Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > And how will we handle re-keying in offload?
>
> Sorry for the stupid question... do you mean that I need to solve that
> problem before this series can progress, or that the cover letter
> should summarize the state of the discussion?
I maintain that 1.3 offload is much more important than rekeying.
Offloads being available for 1.2 may be stalling adoption of 1.3
(just a guess, I run across this article mentioning 1.2 being used
in Oracle cloud for instance:
https://blogs.oracle.com/cloudsecurity/post/how-oci-helps-you-protect-data-with-default-encryption
could be because MITM requirements, or maybe they have HW which
can only do 1.2? Dunno).
But I'm willing to compromise, we just need a solid plan of how to
handle the inevitable. I'm worried that how this will pay out is:
- you don't care about offload and add rekey
- vendors don't care about rekey and add 1.3
... time passes ...
- both you and the vendors have moved on
- users run into issues, waste their time debugging and
eventually report the problem upstream
- it's on me to fix?
:(
Powered by blists - more mailing lists