netdev - Re: [PATCH xfrm-next 0/9] Extend packet offload to fully support libreswan

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: <ZBgfyumyJL10F4g6@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date:   Mon, 20 Mar 2023 09:56:42 +0100
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
CC:     Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        "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>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Paul Blakey <paulb@...dia.com>, Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH xfrm-next 0/9] Extend packet offload to fully support
 libreswan

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:58:35AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> 
> Hi Steffen,
> 
> The following patches are an outcome of Raed's work to add packet
> offload support to libreswan [1].
> 
> The series includes:
>  * Priority support to IPsec policies
>  * Statistics per-SA (visible through "ip -s xfrm state ..." command)
>  * Support to IKE policy holes
>  * Fine tuning to acquire logic.
> 
> --------------------------
> Future submission roadmap, which can be seen here [2]:
>  * Support packet offload in IPsec tunnel mode
>  * Rework lifetime counters support to avoid HW bugs/limitations
>  * Some general cleanup.
> 
> So how do you want me to route the patches, as they have a dependency between them?
> xfrm-next/net-next/mlx5-next?

As the changes to the xfrm core are just minor compared to the rest
of the patchset, I'd not absolutely require to route it through
ipsec-next. Do it as you prefer, but let me know how you plan
to do it.