netdev - Re: [devel-ipsec] [PATCH ipsec-next v4 17/18] xfrm: iptfs: only send the NL attrs that corr. to the SA dir

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]

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 17:27:53 +0200
From: Antony Antony <antony@...nome.org>
To: Christian Hopps <chopps@...pps.org>
Cc: devel@...ux-ipsec.org, Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Christian Hopps <chopps@...n.net>
Subject: Re: [devel-ipsec] [PATCH ipsec-next v4 17/18] xfrm: iptfs: only send
 the NL attrs that corr. to the SA dir

On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 04:53:15PM -0400, Christian Hopps via Devel wrote:
> From: Christian Hopps <chopps@...n.net>
> 
> When sending the netlink attributes to the user for a given SA, only
> send those NL attributes which correspond to the SA's direction.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christian Hopps <chopps@...n.net>
> ---
>  net/xfrm/xfrm_iptfs.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_iptfs.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_iptfs.c
> index 59fd8ee49cd4..049a94a5531b 100644
> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_iptfs.c
> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_iptfs.c
> @@ -2498,13 +2498,16 @@ static unsigned int iptfs_sa_len(const struct xfrm_state *x)
>  	struct xfrm_iptfs_config *xc = &xtfs->cfg;
>  	unsigned int l = 0;
>  
> -	if (xc->dont_frag)
> -		l += nla_total_size(0);
> -	l += nla_total_size(sizeof(xc->reorder_win_size));
> -	l += nla_total_size(sizeof(xc->pkt_size));
> -	l += nla_total_size(sizeof(xc->max_queue_size));
> -	l += nla_total_size(sizeof(u32)); /* drop time usec */
> -	l += nla_total_size(sizeof(u32)); /* init delay usec */
> +	if (x->dir == XFRM_SA_DIR_IN) {
> +		l += nla_total_size(sizeof(u32)); /* drop time usec */
> +		l += nla_total_size(sizeof(xc->reorder_win_size));
> +	} else {
> +		if (xc->dont_frag)
> +			l += nla_total_size(0);	  /* dont-frag flag */
> +		l += nla_total_size(sizeof(u32)); /* init delay usec */
> +		l += nla_total_size(sizeof(xc->max_queue_size));
> +		l += nla_total_size(sizeof(xc->pkt_size));
> +	}
>  
>  	return l;
>  }
> @@ -2516,30 +2519,35 @@ static int iptfs_copy_to_user(struct xfrm_state *x, struct sk_buff *skb)
>  	int ret;
>  	u64 q;
>  
> -	if (xc->dont_frag) {
> -		ret = nla_put_flag(skb, XFRMA_IPTFS_DONT_FRAG);
> +	if (x->dir == XFRM_SA_DIR_IN) {
> +		q = xtfs->drop_time_ns;
> +		(void)do_div(q, NSECS_IN_USEC);
> +		ret = nla_put_u32(skb, XFRMA_IPTFS_DROP_TIME, q);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
> +
> +		ret = nla_put_u16(skb, XFRMA_IPTFS_REORDER_WINDOW,
> +				  xc->reorder_win_size);
> +	} else {
> +		if (xc->dont_frag) {
> +			ret = nla_put_flag(skb, XFRMA_IPTFS_DONT_FRAG);
> +			if (ret)
> +				return ret;
> +		}
> +
> +		q = xtfs->init_delay_ns;
> +		(void)do_div(q, NSECS_IN_USEC);
> +		ret = nla_put_u32(skb, XFRMA_IPTFS_INIT_DELAY, q);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
> +
> +		ret = nla_put_u32(skb, XFRMA_IPTFS_MAX_QSIZE,
> +				  xc->max_queue_size);
>  		if (ret)
>  			return ret;
> +
> +		ret = nla_put_u32(skb, XFRMA_IPTFS_PKT_SIZE, xc->pkt_size);
>  	}
> -	ret = nla_put_u16(skb, XFRMA_IPTFS_REORDER_WINDOW, xc->reorder_win_size);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> -	ret = nla_put_u32(skb, XFRMA_IPTFS_PKT_SIZE, xc->pkt_size);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> -	ret = nla_put_u32(skb, XFRMA_IPTFS_MAX_QSIZE, xc->max_queue_size);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> -
> -	q = xtfs->drop_time_ns;
> -	(void)do_div(q, NSECS_IN_USEC);
> -	ret = nla_put_u32(skb, XFRMA_IPTFS_DROP_TIME, q);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
> -
> -	q = xtfs->init_delay_ns;
> -	(void)do_div(q, NSECS_IN_USEC);
> -	ret = nla_put_u32(skb, XFRMA_IPTFS_INIT_DELAY, q);
>  
>  	return ret;
>  }

looking at this patch, why this should be seperate patch? why not squash 
into [PATCH ipsec-next v4 08/18] xfrm: iptfs: add new iptfs xfrm mode impl

I also think in the v3 it was squashed into some other patch.

-antony