netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/9] psp: support rekeying psp protected tcp connections

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: <20260206201829.45fd9675@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 20:18:29 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Zahka <daniel.zahka@...il.com>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni
 <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Donald Hunter
 <donald.hunter@...il.com>, Boris Pismenny <borisp@...dia.com>, Saeed
 Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Tariq
 Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, Mark Bloch <mbloch@...dia.com>, Andrew Lunn
 <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/9] psp: support rekeying psp protected tcp
 connections

On Wed, 4 Feb 2026 16:43:46 -0500 Daniel Zahka wrote:
> On 2/4/26 3:45 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > Daniel Zahka wrote:  
> >> In the case of tx rekeying, as soon as we install the new tx key, we
> >> have no use for the previous one, and it can be disposed of
> >> immediately.  
> > So this defines a rekey event as an instant in time. An alternative
> > choice is to rekey at a specific seqno.
> >
> > The difference matters only for retransmits.
> >
> > Not sure there is a strong reason for either. But probably good to
> > state the choice explicitly.  
> 
> I suppose if we think about a rekey as occurring at a seqno we could do 
> away with the deferred key deletion, and instead just wait for data sent 
> before that seqno to be ack'd before deleting the key. I would say if 
> nothing else that would be a significant improvement over what I have 
> right now.

If you mean the driver xmit problem - not sure this changed much,
a (spurious) retransmission may theoretically still be queued on 
the driver ring when data is acked.