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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <66394d1b-01ee-46cf-ba9b-5a0faaf398ec@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 16:35:31 +0800
From: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...dia.com>
To: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>, Sabrina Dubroca
	<sd@...asysnail.net>
CC: <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 10/30/2025 4:08 PM, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> 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.

Great, thank you for confirming.

Once this v3 series is merged, I will update and send that cleanup patch 
to ipsec-next, as discussed with Sabrina.

Thanks!
Jianbo