netdev - Re: [PATCH ipsec-next 4/5] xfrm: provide common xdo_dev_offload

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: <6775786f-ee86-4990-8db8-ea95d4313973@linux.dev>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 13:36:17 +0100
From: Zhu Yanjun <yanjun.zhu@...ux.dev>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Ayush Sawal <ayush.sawal@...lsio.com>,
 Bharat Bhushan <bbhushan2@...vell.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Geetha sowjanya <gakula@...vell.com>, hariprasad <hkelam@...vell.com>,
 Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jay Vosburgh <jv@...sburgh.net>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...igine.com,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Potnuri Bharat Teja <bharat@...lsio.com>,
 Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
 Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Subbaraya Sundeep <sbhatta@...vell.com>,
 Sunil Goutham <sgoutham@...vell.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
 Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>, Ilia Lin <ilia.lin@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec-next 4/5] xfrm: provide common xdo_dev_offload_ok
 callback implementation


在 2025/2/16 12:07, Leon Romanovsky 写道:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 10:33:59AM +0100, Zhu Yanjun wrote:
>> 在 2025/2/5 19:20, Leon Romanovsky 写道:
>>> From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
>>>
>>> Almost all drivers except bond and nsim had same check if device
>>> can perform XFRM offload on that specific packet. The check was that
>>> packet doesn't have IPv4 options and IPv6 extensions.
>>>
>>> In NIC drivers, the IPv4 HELEN comparison was slightly different, but
>>> the intent was to check for the same conditions. So let's chose more
>>> strict variant as a common base.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
>>> ---
>>>    Documentation/networking/xfrm_device.rst      |  3 ++-
>>>    drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c               | 16 +++++---------
>>>    .../net/ethernet/chelsio/cxgb4/cxgb4_main.c   | 21 -------------------
>>>    .../inline_crypto/ch_ipsec/chcr_ipsec.c       | 16 --------------
>>>    .../net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_ipsec.c    | 21 -------------------
>>>    drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/ipsec.c    | 21 -------------------
>>>    .../marvell/octeontx2/nic/cn10k_ipsec.c       | 15 -------------
>>>    .../mellanox/mlx5/core/en_accel/ipsec.c       | 16 --------------
>>>    .../net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/crypto/ipsec.c | 11 ----------
>>>    drivers/net/netdevsim/ipsec.c                 | 11 ----------
>>>    drivers/net/netdevsim/netdevsim.h             |  1 -
>>>    net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c                        | 15 +++++++++++++
>>>    12 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 145 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/networking/xfrm_device.rst b/Documentation/networking/xfrm_device.rst
>>> index 66f6e9a9b59a..39bb98939d1f 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/networking/xfrm_device.rst
>>> +++ b/Documentation/networking/xfrm_device.rst
>>> @@ -126,7 +126,8 @@ been setup for offload, it first calls into xdo_dev_offload_ok() with
>>>    the skb and the intended offload state to ask the driver if the offload
>>>    will serviceable.  This can check the packet information to be sure the
>>>    offload can be supported (e.g. IPv4 or IPv6, no IPv4 options, etc) and
>>> -return true of false to signify its support.
>>> +return true of false to signify its support. In case driver doesn't implement
>> In this commit, remove the functions cxgb4_ipsec_offload_ok,
>> ch_ipsec_offload_ok, ixgbe_ipsec_offload_ok, ixgbevf_ipsec_offload_ok,
>> cn10k_ipsec_offload_ok, mlx5e_ipsec_offload_ok, nfp_net_ipsec_offload_ok and
>> nsim_ipsec_offload_ok, use the function xfrm_dev_offload_ok to do the same
>> work.
>>
>> But in the file xfrm_device.rst, "return true or false to signify its
>> support"?
> This sentence continued in the xfrm_device.rst: "...  In case driver doesn't implement
> this callback, the stack provides reasonable defaults."

Got it.

I mean "... and return true of false to signify its support..."

                                           ^^

should be "... and return true or false to signify its support..."

^_^

Zhu Yanjun

>
>> of --> should be "or"
>>
>> Thanks a lot.
>> Reviewed-by: Zhu Yanjun <yanjun.zhu@...ux.dev>
> Thanks
>
>> Zhu Yanjun
>>
>>> +this callback, the stack provides reasonable defaults.
>>>    Crypto offload mode:
>>>    When ready to send, the driver needs to inspect the Tx packet for the
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>> index e45bba240cbc..bfb55c23380b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
>>> @@ -676,22 +676,16 @@ static void bond_ipsec_free_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
>>>    static bool bond_ipsec_offload_ok(struct sk_buff *skb, struct xfrm_state *xs)

-- 
Best Regards,
Yanjun.Zhu