From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [pull request][net-next V2 00/15] mlx5 updates 2023-10-19
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 10:29:58 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231026072958.GD2950466@unreal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231025182502.54f79369@kernel.org>
On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 06:25:02PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:52:02 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > This patch won't fix much without following patch in that series.
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231021064620.87397-8-saeed@kernel.org/
> >
> > Yes, users will see their replay window correctly through "ip xfrm state"
> > command, so this is why it has Fixes line, but it won't change anything
> > in the actual behavior without patch 7 and this is the reason why it was
> > sent to net-next.
>
> Odd ordering of patches, anyone doing backports would totally miss it.
> Neither does the commit message explain the situation nor is it
> possible to grok that fact from the ("pass it to FW") code :(
This is why these patches are bundled together as one series.
>
> > From patch 3:
> > Users can configure IPsec replay window size, but mlx5 driver didn't
> > honor their choice and set always 32bits.
> >
> > From patch 7:
> > After IPsec decryption it isn't enough to only check the IPsec syndrome
> > but need to also check the ASO syndrome in order to verify that the
> > operation was actually successful.
>
> Hm, patch 7 looks like an independent but related fix to my uneducated
> eye, should it also have a Fixes tag?
>
> Is patch 7 needed regardless of what choice of (previously ignored)
> parameters user makes?
Yes, I missed register check and without that replay protection feature
didn't work as one would expect, so it is needed anyway. The patch is
large, complex (IMHO not for -rc7) and I agree with Saeed that "missed register"
sounds like "missed feature".
> One way to deal with the problems from patches
> 3 and 4 could be to reject the de facto unsupported configurations.
> But if the supported config also doesn't check the "syndrome" correctly
> in all cases, that's no bueno..
Patch 4 was discovered before replay window testing, when we run HW vs.
SW interoperability testing. The feature of setting seq/oseq is orthogonal
to replay window.
Thanks
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-26 7:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-21 6:46 [pull request][net-next V2 00/15] mlx5 updates 2023-10-19 Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-21 6:46 ` [net-next V2 01/15] xfrm: generalize xdo_dev_state_update_curlft to allow statistics update Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-21 6:46 ` [net-next V2 02/15] xfrm: get global statistics from the offloaded device Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-21 6:46 ` [net-next V2 03/15] net/mlx5e: Honor user choice of IPsec replay window size Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-21 6:46 ` [net-next V2 04/15] net/mlx5e: Ensure that IPsec sequence packet number starts from 1 Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-21 6:46 ` [net-next V2 05/15] net/mlx5e: Unify esw and normal IPsec status table creation/destruction Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-21 6:46 ` [net-next V2 06/15] net/mlx5e: Remove exposure of IPsec RX flow steering struct Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-21 6:46 ` [net-next V2 07/15] net/mlx5e: Add IPsec and ASO syndromes check in HW Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-21 6:46 ` [net-next V2 08/15] net/mlx5e: Connect mlx5 IPsec statistics with XFRM core Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-21 6:46 ` [net-next V2 09/15] net/mlx5e: Delete obsolete IPsec code Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-21 6:46 ` [net-next V2 10/15] net/mlx5: Increase size of irq name buffer Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-21 6:46 ` [net-next V2 11/15] net/mlx5e: Reduce the size of icosq_str Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-21 6:46 ` [net-next V2 12/15] net/mlx5e: Check return value of snprintf writing to fw_version buffer Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-21 6:46 ` [net-next V2 13/15] net/mlx5e: Check return value of snprintf writing to fw_version buffer for representors Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-21 6:46 ` [net-next V2 14/15] net/mlx5: print change on SW reset semaphore returns busy Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-21 6:46 ` [net-next V2 15/15] net/mlx5: Allow sync reset flow when BF MGT interface device is present Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-25 1:02 ` [pull request][net-next V2 00/15] mlx5 updates 2023-10-19 Jakub Kicinski
2023-10-25 8:52 ` Leon Romanovsky
2023-10-26 1:25 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-10-26 7:29 ` Leon Romanovsky [this message]
2023-10-26 22:26 ` Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-26 22:46 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-10-27 0:44 ` Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-27 10:08 ` Leon Romanovsky
2023-10-27 22:02 ` Saeed Mahameed
2023-10-29 7:44 ` Leon Romanovsky
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20231026072958.GD2950466@unreal \
--to=leon@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=saeed@kernel.org \
--cc=saeedm@nvidia.com \
--cc=tariqt@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).