netdev - Re: [PATCH] xfrm: add SA information to the offloaded packet

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: <CADsK2K8+sEGwLSX_Q2nxcOosbGFFKjfKb2ffRXK2E1sp_Fbd+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 17:27:29 -0700
From: Feng Wang <wangfe@...gle.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	antony.antony@...unet.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: add SA information to the offloaded packet

Hi Leon,

I believe you are right about the mlx5e_ipsec_feature_check function.
And it shows that the driver can indeed make use of the SA
information. Similarly, in packet offload mode, drivers can
potentially leverage this information for their own purposes. The
patch is designed to be non-intrusive, so drivers that don't utilize
this information won't be affected in any way.

I'm also curious about why the mlx driver doesn't seem to use the XFRM
interface ID in the same way that xfrm_policy_match() does.
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10.7/source/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c#L1993
This ID is critical in scenarios with multiple IPsec tunnels, where
source and destination addresses alone might not be sufficient to
identify the correct security policy. Perhaps there's a specific
reason or design choice behind this in the mlx driver?

Thank you once again for your valuable insights and collaboration.

Feng