Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v2 0/6] Extend XFRM core to allow full offload configuration

[Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 10:34:43AM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 04:26:39PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 12:09:30PM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > > Hi Leon,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 11:59:21AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Changelog:
> > > > v2:
> > > >  * Rebased to latest 6.0-rc1
> > > >  * Add an extra check in TX datapath patch to validate packets before
> > > >    forwarding to HW.
> > > >  * Added policy cleanup logic in case of netdev down event 
> > > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1652851393.git.leonro@nvidia.com 
> > > >  * Moved comment to be before if (...) in third patch.
> > > > v0: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1652176932.git.leonro@nvidia.com
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 
> > > > The following series extends XFRM core code to handle new type of IPsec
> > > > offload - full offload.
> > > > 
> > > > In this mode, the HW is going to be responsible for whole data path, so
> > > > both policy and state should be offloaded.
> > > 
> > > some general comments about the pachset:
> > > 
> > > As implemented, the software does not hold any state.
> > > I.e. there is no sync between hardware and software
> > > regarding stats, liftetime, lifebyte, packet counts
> > > and replay window. IKE rekeying and auditing is based
> > > on these, how should this be done?
> > 
> > This is only rough idea as we only started to implement needed
> > support in libreswan, but our plan is to configure IKE with
> > highest possible priority 
> 
> If it is only a rough idea, then mark it as RFC. I want to see
> the whole picture before we merge it. And btw. tunnel mode
> belongs to the whoule picture too.

It is a rough in a sense that we don't have code to present yet.
We did arch review of this IKE approach and it is how we are
implementing it.

> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > I have not seen anything that catches configurations
> > > that stack multiple tunnels with the outer offloaded.
> > > 
> > > Where do we make sure that policy offloading device
> > > is the same as the state offloading device?
> > 
> > It is configuration error and we don't check it. Should we?
> 
> We should at least make sure to not send out packets untransformed
> in this case.

In TX SW path, if state doesn't exist, the packets will be sent
unencrypted. This "wrong" device configuration in offloaded path
has same behavior as not having state at all.

Thanks