Re: [PATCH ipsec-next v3] xfrm: Add Direction to the SA in or out

[Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:54:30AM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 08:59:29PM +0100, Antony Antony wrote:
> > This patch introduces the 'dir' attribute, 'in' or 'out', to the
> > xfrm_state, SA, enhancing usability by delineating the scope of values
> > based on direction. An input SA will now exclusively encompass values
> > pertinent to input, effectively segregating them from output-related
> > values. This change aims to streamline the configuration process and
> > improve the overall clarity of SA attributes.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Antony Antony <antony.antony@secunet.com>
> > ---
> > v2->v3:
> >  - delete redundant XFRM_SA_DIR_USET
> >  - use u8 for "dir"
> >  - fix HW OFFLOAD DIR check
> > 
> > v1->v2:
> >  - use .strict_start_type in struct nla_policy xfrma_policy
> >  - delete redundant XFRM_SA_DIR_MAX enum
> > ---
> >  include/net/xfrm.h        |  1 +
> >  include/uapi/linux/xfrm.h |  6 +++++
> >  net/xfrm/xfrm_compat.c    |  7 ++++--
> >  net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c    |  5 +++++
> >  net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c     |  1 +
> >  net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c      | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >  6 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> <...>
> 
> > diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
> > index 3784534c9185..481a374eff3b 100644
> > --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
> > +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
> > @@ -253,6 +253,11 @@ int xfrm_dev_state_add(struct net *net, struct xfrm_state *x,
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  	}
> > 
> > +	if (xuo->flags & XFRM_OFFLOAD_INBOUND && x->dir == XFRM_SA_DIR_OUT) {
> > +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Mismatched SA and offload direction");
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> 
> It is only one side, the more comprehensive check should be done for
> XFRM_SA_DIR_IN too.
> 
> if ((xuo->flags & XFRM_OFFLOAD_INBOUND && x->dir == XFRM_SA_DIR_OUT) ||
> !((xuo->flags & XFRM_OFFLOAD_INBOUND) && x->dir == XFRM_SA_DIR_IN))

(!(...) ... ) and not !((....) ... ).

> ....
> 
> and IMHO, it is better to have this check in verify_newsa_info().
> 
> Thanks
>