From: "Daniel Zahka" <daniel.zahka@gmail.com>
To: <netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org>, <daniel.zahka@gmail.com>
Cc: <kuba@kernel.org>, <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
<davem@davemloft.net>, <edumazet@kernel.org>, <pabeni@redhat.com>,
<horms@kernel.org>, <corbet@lwn.net>, <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
<rdunlap@infradead.org>, <donald.hunter@gmail.com>,
<andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>, <shuah@kernel.org>,
<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 5/5] selftests: drv-net: psp: add rekey tests
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2026 08:25:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DMQPPFZ838LR.U3X8GICZQTH6@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <179408517003.994134.18139473201924553095@kernel.org>
On Sat Nov 7, 2026 at 3:59 PM EST, netdev-bot+sashiko wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found more severe
> issue(s) in other patches of this series. This mail is only an FYI, in case
> you want to address the nit picks below when you respin.
>
> Low priority / nit picks for your consideration:
>
> - [Low] In tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/psp.py, the second half of
> rekey_both_sides() (the "# now, tx then rx" block, lines 734-736) does…
>
> --
>
> selftests: drv-net: psp: add rekey tests
>
> This commit adds psp.py selftests for rekeying PSP connections. They cover
> basic Rx and Tx rekeys, plus cases where rx-assoc and tx-assoc should fail
> because of a psp version mismatch or the psp state. It also adds rx-assoc,
> tx-assoc and key-rotate RPCs to psp_responder.
>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/psp.py b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/psp.py
>> index 71eeade62ad24..004faf4bb57ae 100755
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/psp.py
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/psp.py
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> @@ -489,6 +558,186 @@ def _data_basic_send(cfg, version, ipver):
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> +@ksft_variants(_get_psp_ver_variants())
>> +def rekey_both_sides(cfg, version):
>> + """Test rekeying both directions"""
>> + _init_psp_dev(cfg)
>> +
>> + s = _establish_psp_conn(cfg, version)
>> + try:
>> + data_len = _psp_txrx(cfg, s, 10)
>> +
>> + cfg.pspnl.key_rotate({"id": cfg.psp_dev_id})
>> + _remote_key_rotate(cfg)
>> +
>> + # first, rx then tx
>> + data_len = _rekey_rx(cfg, s, version, data_len)
>> + data_len = _rekey_tx(cfg, s, data_len)
>> +
>> + cfg.pspnl.key_rotate({"id": cfg.psp_dev_id})
>> + _remote_key_rotate(cfg)
>> +
>> + # now, tx then rx
>> + data_len = _rekey_tx(cfg, s, data_len)
>> + _rekey_rx(cfg, s, version, data_len)
>
> [Severity: Low]
> Does the "tx then rx" half of rekey_both_sides() check that either of its
> Tx rekeys actually took effect?
>
> After an Rx rekey, the old SPI stays acceptable:
>
> net/psp/psp_sock.c:psp_sock_rx_rekey() {
> ...
> pas->prev_spi = prev->rx.spi;
> pas->prev_generation = prev->generation;
>
> memcpy(&pas->tx, &prev->tx, sizeof(pas->tx));
> ...
> }
>
> psp_pse_matches_pas() accepts packets that match it:
>
> include/net/psp/functions.h:psp_pse_matches_pas() {
> ...
> (pas->prev_spi && pas->prev_spi == pse->spi &&
> pas->prev_generation == pse->generation));
> }
>
> The old SPI only becomes invalid when the device key is rotated:
>
> net/psp/psp_sock.c:psp_assocs_key_rotated() {
> ...
> list_for_each_entry(pas, &psd->active_assocs, assocs_list) {
> if ((pas->rx.spi ^ pas->prev_spi) &
> cpu_to_be32(PSP_SPI_KEY_PHASE))
> pas->prev_generation |= ~PSP_GEN_VALID_MASK;
> }
> ...
> }
>
> In the first half, the key_rotate calls that come next cause a stale Tx
> SPI to be dropped. The second half ends right after _rekey_rx(), and
> neither side rotates again.
>
> Say the local tx_assoc in _rekey_tx() were silently ignored. The local
> side would keep sending with the old SPI, and the responder would still
> accept it through prev_spi. The same applies if the responder ignored
> the tx assoc sent by _remote_tx_assoc() in _rekey_rx(): its echo would
> still be accepted locally.
>
> This half is also the only place where an Rx rekey follows a Tx rekey on
> the same socket, which is the memcpy of prev->tx shown above. If that
> path lost the Tx key that was just installed, would this test notice?
>
> The v3 changelog says the basic tests now "rotate again after it to
> verify the new key is in use". Could this test end the same way, with a
> final cfg.pspnl.key_rotate() and _remote_key_rotate() and then another
> _psp_txrx()?
>
>> + finally:
>> + _close_psp_conn(cfg, s)
>
> [ ... ]
Like you said, the other tests were changed in v3 to pick up this
coverage. This test was more about crossing device key rotations. I
think we can let the dedicated rx and tx rekey tests cover this.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-09 13:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-06 20:12 [PATCH net-next v3 0/5] psp: support rekeying psp protected tcp connections Daniel Zahka
2026-11-06 20:12 ` [PATCH net-next v3 1/5] psp: support rx rekey operation Daniel Zahka
2026-11-07 20:59 ` netdev-bot+sashiko
2026-11-09 12:30 ` Daniel Zahka
2026-11-06 20:12 ` [PATCH net-next v3 2/5] psp: support tx " Daniel Zahka
2026-11-06 20:12 ` [PATCH net-next v3 3/5] psp: defer tx key deletions for SADB drivers Daniel Zahka
2026-11-07 20:59 ` netdev-bot+sashiko
2026-11-09 12:40 ` Daniel Zahka
2026-11-06 20:12 ` [PATCH net-next v3 4/5] selftests: drv-net: psp: factor out psp connection setup Daniel Zahka
2026-11-07 20:59 ` netdev-bot+sashiko
2026-11-09 13:03 ` Daniel Zahka
2026-11-06 20:12 ` [PATCH net-next v3 5/5] selftests: drv-net: psp: add rekey tests Daniel Zahka
2026-11-07 20:59 ` netdev-bot+sashiko
2026-11-09 13:25 ` Daniel Zahka [this message]
2026-11-08 14:47 ` [PATCH net-next v3 0/5] psp: support rekeying psp protected tcp connections Willem de Bruijn
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=DMQPPFZ838LR.U3X8GICZQTH6@gmail.com \
--to=daniel.zahka@gmail.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=donald.hunter@gmail.com \
--cc=edumazet@kernel.org \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®