netdev - Re: [PATCH xfrm-next 5/9] net/mlx5e: Unify esw and normal IPsec status table creation/destruction

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20231019110126.GL5392@unreal>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:01:26 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc: Patrisious Haddad <phaddad@...dia.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH xfrm-next 5/9] net/mlx5e: Unify esw and normal IPsec
 status table creation/destruction

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 10:46:05AM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 03:13:57PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 11:38:51AM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 12:15:13PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > From: Patrisious Haddad <phaddad@...dia.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Change normal IPsec flow to use the same creation/destruction functions
> > > > for status flow table as that of ESW, which first of all refines the
> > > > code to have less code duplication.
> > > > 
> > > > And more importantly, the ESW status table handles IPsec syndrome
> > > > checks at steering by HW, which is more efficient than the previous
> > > > behaviour we had where it was copied to WQE meta data and checked
> > > > by the driver.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Patrisious Haddad <phaddad@...dia.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
> > > 
> > > This one does not apply to the ipsec-next tree.
> > 
> > You are right, sorry about that. It is based on two net-next series
> > and I didn't expect such a fast response. 
> > 
> > 1. https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20231002083832.19746-1-leon@kernel.org/ - accepted.
> > 2. https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20231014171908.290428-16-saeed@kernel.org/#t - not accepted yet.
> > 
> > Do you feel comfortable with the series/xfrm patches? If yes, Saeed can
> > resend the series directly to net-next once patch #2 is accepted.
> 
> The xfrm changes look good and it does not conflict
> to anything that is in ipsec-next currently. So
> send it to net-next and I'll Ack it.

Thanks a lot.

> 
> Thanks!