Re: [PATCH net-next v2] xfrm: Add ESN support for IPSec HW offload

[Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@oracle.com>]

On 1/10/2018 3:09 PM, Yossi Kuperman wrote:
>> On 10 Jan 2018, at 19:36, Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/10/2018 2:34 AM, yossefe@mellanox.com wrote:
>>> From: Yossef Efraim <yossefe@mellanox.com>
>>> This patch adds ESN support to IPsec device offload.
>>> Adding new xfrm device operation to synchronize device ESN.
>>> Signed-off-by: Yossef Efraim <yossefe@mellanox.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes from v1:
>>>   - Added documentation
>>> ---
>>>   Documentation/networking/xfrm_device.txt |  3 +++
>>>   include/linux/netdevice.h                |  1 +
>>>   include/net/xfrm.h                       | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>   net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c                   |  4 ++--
>>>   net/xfrm/xfrm_replay.c                   |  2 ++
>>>   5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

[...]

>>> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
>>> index 7598250..704a055 100644
>>> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
>>> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
>>> @@ -147,8 +147,8 @@ int xfrm_dev_state_add(struct net *net, struct xfrm_state *x,
>>>       if (!x->type_offload)
>>>           return -EINVAL;
>>>   -    /* We don't yet support UDP encapsulation, TFC padding and ESN. */
>>> -    if (x->encap || x->tfcpad || (x->props.flags & XFRM_STATE_ESN))
>>> +    /* We don't yet support UDP encapsulation and TFC padding. */
>>> +    if (x->encap || x->tfcpad)
>>
>> As I mentioned before, this will cause issues when working with hardware that has no ESN support, such as Intel's x540: the stack will expect the driver to do ESN, and nothing actually happens but a rollover of the numbers.  Sure, the driver could look for the ESN attribute and fail the add, but that's a mode where we have to update every driver to fend off problems every time we add a new feature.  Much better is to only update drivers that actively support the new feature.
>>
> 
> You are right.
> 
> I’m not sure why this check is here in the first place. IMO it should take place in xdo_dev_state_add—a driver-specific callback.
> 

If you say I'm right, then why do you say it should take place in the 
driver callback?  I just wrote that it should *not*.

This code seems to be assuming that all drivers/NICs with the offload 
will be able to do ESN, and this is not the case.  If this code is put 
into place, suddenly the ixgbe driver's offload will have a failure 
case: the driver doesn't support ESN, and doesn't know to NAK the 
state_add if the ESN bit is on.  This is a generic capabilities issue 
for which we already have a solution "pattern".

 > What do you suggest?
 >

There should be a capabilities/feature flag for the driver to set and 
the XFRM code shouldn't try the state_add with ESN if the driver hasn't 
set an ESN bit in its capabilities.  Other capabilities that might make 
sense here are IPv6, TSO, and CSUM; there may be others.

>> Look at how feature bits are added to netdev->features to signify what the driver can do.  I think that's a much better approach.
>>
> 
> It looks like an overkill?

Alternatively, just solve this by failing to add the SA that has ESN set 
if the driver hasn't defined your new xdo_dev_state_advance_esn().

sln


> 
>> sln
>>
>>
>>>           return -EINVAL;
>>>         dev = dev_get_by_index(net, xuo->ifindex);
>>> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_replay.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_replay.c
>>> index 0250181..1d38c6a 100644
>>> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_replay.c
>>> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_replay.c
>>> @@ -551,6 +551,8 @@ static void xfrm_replay_advance_esn(struct xfrm_state *x, __be32 net_seq)
>>>               bitnr = replay_esn->replay_window - (diff - pos);
>>>       }
>>>   +    xfrm_dev_state_advance_esn(x);
>>> +
>>>       nr = bitnr >> 5;
>>>       bitnr = bitnr & 0x1F;
>>>       replay_esn->bmp[nr] |= (1U << bitnr);