Re: [PATCH ipsec-next v9] xfrm: Add Direction to the SA in or out

[Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net>]

2024-04-10, 08:32:20 +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> Le 09/04/2024 à 19:56, Antony Antony a écrit :
> > 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.
> > 
> > This feature sets the groundwork for future patches, including
> > the upcoming IP-TFS patch.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Antony Antony <antony.antony@secunet.com>
> > ---
> > v8->v9:
> >  - add validation XFRM_STATE_ICMP not allowed on OUT SA.
> > 
> > v7->v8:
> >  - add extra validation check on replay window and seq
> >  - XFRM_MSG_UPDSA old and new SA should match "dir"
> > 
> > v6->v7:
> >  - add replay-window check non-esn 0 and ESN 1.
> >  - remove :XFRMA_SA_DIR only allowed with HW OFFLOAD
> Why? I still think that having an 'input' SA used in the output path is wrong
> and confusing.
> Please, don't drop this check.

Limiting XFRMA_SA_DIR to only HW offload makes no sense. It's
completely redundant with an existing property. We should also try to
limit the divergence between offload and non-offload configuration. If
something is clearly only for offloaded configs, then fine, but
otherwise the APIs should be identical.

And based on what Antony says, this is intended in large part for
IPTFS, which is not going to be offloaded any time soon (or probably
ever), so that restriction would have to be lifted immediately. I'm
not sure why Antony accepted your request.

-- 
Sabrina