netdev - Re: [PATCH ipsec v3 2/2] xfrm: Determine inner GSO type from packet inner protocol

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: <aQMc64pcTzvkupc1@secunet.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:08:11 +0100
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
CC: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...dia.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@...dia.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, David Ahern
	<dsahern@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec v3 2/2] xfrm: Determine inner GSO type from packet
 inner protocol

On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 04:04:36PM +0100, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2025-10-28, 21:36:17 +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote:
> > 
> > My proposed plan is:
> > 
> > Send the patch 1 and patch 3 (including the xfrm_ip2inner_mode change)
> > together to the ipsec tree. They are self-contained fixes.
> 
> So, keep v3 of this series unchanged.
> 
> > Separately, after those are accepted, I can modify and re-submit that patch
> > [1] to ipsec-next that removes the now-redundant checks from the other
> > callers (VTI, etc.), leveraging the updated helper function.
> > 
> > This way, the critical fixes are self-contained and backportable, while the
> > cleanup of other callers happens later in the development cycle.
> 
> The only (small) drawback is leaving the duplicate code checking
> AF_UNSPEC in the existing callers of xfrm_ip2inner_mode, but I guess
> that's ok.
> 
> 
> Steffen, is it ok for you to
> 
>  - have a duplicate AF_UNSPEC check in callers of xfrm_ip2inner_mode
>    (the existing "default to x->inner_mode, call xfrm_ip2inner_mode if
>    AF_UNSPEC", and the new one added to xfrm_ip2inner_mode by this
>    patch) in the ipsec tree and then in stable?
> 
>  - do the clean up (like the diff I pasted in my previous email, or
>    something smaller if [1] is applied separately) in ipsec-next after
>    ipsec is merged into it?

I'm OK with this, I can take v3 as is.