netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] macsec: introduce default_async

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: <20230822085950.02d2d2b0@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 08:59:50 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Scott Dial <scott@...ttdial.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] macsec: introduce default_async_crypto sysctl

On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 17:39:56 +0200 Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2023-08-18, 18:46:48 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > Can we not fix the ordering problem?
> > Queue the packets locally if they get out of order?  
> 
> Actually, looking into the crypto API side, I don't see how they can
> get out of order since commit 81760ea6a95a ("crypto: cryptd - Add
> helpers to check whether a tfm is queued"):
> 
>     [...] ensure that no reordering is introduced because of requests
>     queued in cryptd with respect to requests being processed in
>     softirq context.
> 
> And cryptd_aead_queued() is used by AESNI (via simd_aead_decrypt()) to
> decide whether to process the request synchronously or not.
> 
> So I really don't get what commit ab046a5d4be4 was trying to fix. I've
> never been able to reproduce that issue, I guess commit 81760ea6a95a
> explains why.
> 
> I'd suggest to revert commit ab046a5d4be4, but it feels wrong to
> revert it without really understanding what problem Scott hit and why
> 81760ea6a95a didn't solve it.
> 
> What do you think?

Unless Scott can tell us what he was seeing I think we should revert.
The code looks fine to me as well...