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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZTDszYAuNv16bGBO@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 10:46:05 +0200
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
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 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!