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: <ZqpwB-kDLXt9N8vT@hog>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 19:10:31 +0200
From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
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: [PATCH ipsec-next v5 06/17] xfrm: add mode_cbs module
 functionality

2024-07-30, 17:29:06 -0400, Christian Hopps wrote:
> 
> 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.

Sure, but I don't think we should model new code on old habits.

> > > 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.

I don't think it is. Inline comments are good to explain the internal
behavior, but that's more external behavior.

> 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.

Sure, and that's really not what I'm asking for here. Something like
"encap_type=-3 makes xfrm_input jump right back to where it stopped
when xfrm_inner_mode_input returned -EINPROGRESS" is useful without
having to dive into the mess that is xfrm_input.

-- 
Sabrina