netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] 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: <20241106121724.GB5006@unreal>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 14:17:24 +0200
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Feng Wang <wangfe@...gle.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, steffen.klassert@...unet.com,
	antony.antony@...unet.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfrm: add SA information to the offloaded packet

On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 03:41:15PM -0800, Feng Wang wrote:
> Hi Leon,
> I checked the current tree and there are no drivers who support packet
> offload. Even for the mlx5 driver, it only supports crypto offload
> mode. 

I don't know what to add here. We already had this discussion for more
than once.
https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZfpnCIv+8eYd7CpO@gauss3.secunet.de/
Let's me cite Steffen:

"There are 'packet offload drivers' in the kernel, that's why we
support this kind of offload."

> If I miss anything, please let me know.
> Since the driver only requires the Security Association (SA) to
> perform the necessary transformations,  policy information is not
> needed. Storing policy information, matching the policy and checking
> the if_id within the driver wouldn't provide much benefit. 

You need to make sure that policy and SA has match in their selectors,
and IMHO you can't add support to SA without adding same support to
policy.

> It would increase CPU and memory usage without a clear advantage.
> For all other suggestions, I totally agree with you.
> 
> Thanks,
> Feng