netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 09/12] net/mlx5: Compare with old

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: <20230714121633.18d19c4c@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 12:16:33 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...dia.com>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "David S . Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 09/12] net/mlx5: Compare with old_dest param to
 modify rule destination

On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 21:40:13 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > In theory, we support any order, but in real life I don't think that TC
> > > before IPsec is really valuable.  
> > 
> > I asked the question poorly. To clearer, you're saying that:
> > 
> > a)  host <-> TC <-> IPsec <-> "wire"/switch
> >   or
> > b)  host <-> IPsec <-> TC <-> "wire"/switch
> > 
> > ?  
> 
> It depends on configuration order, if user configures TC first, it will
> be a), if he/she configures IPsec first, it will be b).
> 
> I just think that option b) is really matters.

And only b) matches what happens in the kernel with policy based IPsec,
right? So can we reject a) from happening? IIUC what you're saying -
the result depending on order of configuration may be a major source
of surprises / hard to debug problems for the user.