netdev - Re: [pull request][net-next V2 00/15] mlx5 updates 2023-10-19

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: <20231025182502.54f79369@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 18:25:02 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [pull request][net-next V2 00/15] mlx5 updates 2023-10-19

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:52:02 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> This patch won't fix much without following patch in that series.
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231021064620.87397-8-saeed@kernel.org/
> 
> Yes, users will see their replay window correctly through "ip xfrm state"
> command, so this is why it has Fixes line, but it won't change anything
> in the actual behavior without patch 7 and this is the reason why it was
> sent to net-next.

Odd ordering of patches, anyone doing backports would totally miss it.
Neither does the commit message explain the situation nor is it
possible to grok that fact from the ("pass it to FW") code :(

> From patch 3:
>  Users can configure IPsec replay window size, but mlx5 driver didn't
>  honor their choice and set always 32bits.
> 
> From patch 7:
>  After IPsec decryption it isn't enough to only check the IPsec syndrome
>  but need to also check the ASO syndrome in order to verify that the
>  operation was actually successful.

Hm, patch 7 looks like an independent but related fix to my uneducated
eye, should it also have a Fixes tag?

Is patch 7 needed regardless of what choice of (previously ignored)
parameters user makes? One way to deal with the problems from patches 
3 and 4 could be to reject the de facto unsupported configurations.
But if the supported config also doesn't check the "syndrome" correctly
in all cases, that's no bueno..