netdev - Re: [PATCH v7] xfrm: add SA information to the offloaded packet when if

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: <20241210192048.386d518a@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 19:20:48 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>, Feng Wang
 <wangfe@...gle.com>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 <antony.antony@...unet.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] xfrm: add SA information to the offloaded packet
 when if_id is set

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 10:38:34 +0100 Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > This patch was done based on our previous discussion.  I did the
> > changes we agreed on.  
> 
> there is still no real packet offload support for netdev sim.
> And as said, this is at most the second best option.
> 
> You need to prove that this works. I want a complete API,
> but I also want a working one.
> 
> The easiest way to prove that this is implemented correctly
> is to upstream your driver. Everyting else is controversial
> and complicated.

Yes, I don't have full context but FWIW offload changes accompanied 
by just netdevsim modifications raise a red flag:

Quoting documentation:

  netdevsim
  ~~~~~~~~~

  ``netdevsim`` is a test driver which can be used to exercise driver
  configuration APIs without requiring capable hardware.
  Mock-ups and tests based on ``netdevsim`` are strongly encouraged when
  adding new APIs, but ``netdevsim`` in itself is **not** considered
  a use case/user. You must also implement the new APIs in a real driver.

  We give no guarantees that ``netdevsim`` won't change in the future
  in a way which would break what would normally be considered uAPI.

  ``netdevsim`` is reserved for use by upstream tests only, so any
  new ``netdevsim`` features must be accompanied by selftests under
  ``tools/testing/selftests/``.

See: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/process/maintainer-netdev.html#netdevsim