netdev - Re: [PATCH ipsec-next v5 06/17] xfrm: add mode

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: <m28qxhapkr.fsf@ja.int.chopps.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 17:29:06 -0400
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@...pps.org>
To: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@...pps.org>, devel@...ux-ipsec.org, Steffen
 Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Christian
 Hopps <chopps@...n.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next v5 06/17] xfrm: add mode_cbs module
 functionality

Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net> writes:

> 2024-07-14, 16:22:34 -0400, Christian Hopps wrote:
>> +struct xfrm_mode_cbs {
>
> It would be nice to add kdoc for the whole thing.

Ok, I'll move the inline comments to a kdoc. FWIW, all the other structs in this header, including the main `xfrm_state` struct use the same inline comment documentation style I copied.

>> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
>> index 7cee9c0a2cdc..6ff05604f973 100644
>> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
>> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_input.c
>> @@ -494,6 +497,10 @@ int xfrm_input(struct sk_buff *skb, int nexthdr, __be32 spi, int encap_type)
>>
>>  		family = x->props.family;
>>
>> +		/* An encap_type of -3 indicates reconstructed inner packet */
>
> And I think it's time to document all the encap_types above the
> function (and in particular, how xfrm_inner_mode_input/encap_type=-3
> pair together), and/or define some constants. Also, is -2 used
> anywhere (I only see -1 and -3)? If not, then why -3?

At the time this was added ISTR that there was some belief that -2 was used perhaps in an upcoming patch, so I picked -3. I can't find a -2 use case though so I will switch to -2 instead.

Re documentation: I think the inline comments where encap_type is used is sufficient documentation for the 2 negative values. There's a lot going on in this function and someone wishing to change (or understand) something is going to have to walk the code and use cases regardless of a bit of extra verbiage on the encap_value beyond what's already there. Fully documenting how xfrm_input works (in all it's use cases) seems beyond the scope of this patch to me.

Thanks,
Chris.