From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085F543DCA for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:23:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBAEE40289; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:22:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-yw1-f182.google.com (mail-yw1-f182.google.com [209.85.128.182]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B574B40041 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:22:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-yw1-f182.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-615019cd427so34839987b3.3 for ; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 02:22:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712568178; x=1713172978; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=vz0p/TwwdPA53Kr0CmufR2WXientAQ0L9s132YSOqbY=; b=XKTNUF7F8Fe2f6QWXxYErlCJGb9dbtDRXxvtDOh8h5o64no1OZq4D7jxT1iKFLVoem B50SkGeOgnr9TW9ZS0q21lsCrH3Pm10Od3JvLFQhXB2yNSxGu4OUb2x8naofknoCIrkg sW6uOX2NV1U1sOICybs74pArb4cIHzXTFvunOu+k+Yh+bu55N3pEDwE5k7foMAE0VqAr DoAEPlSvwP8VU8PsIL9RCrhX4evE9ULWfO1o3N/cQ9wJMKaldKCHJbmY44tXrIxnjE// Azjle/PZp+9W7Wz/AwZhI76ClC7IuDKAo9fD1efokEg/Ha+c+qf1yA0Jt7CwJoes2a+n UP9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx9S8rsdHNoGcYY0LHvLmD/v7gIZvGMaoFpn2uqt8xiiltNCngr zZbsGqG5nVl71QBUoWLl4TQjIdfR617cn5Ba8wyBwZKKhd8vseyylardZh3o8TU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGqhmnGpPvx4QprESFnK1t1pXf7Ma1NLfdLcufu3WsfNJ7XUlOYxsl0NeM/vuWD2uk+BchL9w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:dd6:b0:617:fd3f:ae60 with SMTP id db22-20020a05690c0dd600b00617fd3fae60mr3328671ywb.46.1712568177840; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 02:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw1-f175.google.com (mail-yw1-f175.google.com. [209.85.128.175]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ib9-20020a05690c678900b0061517f052c0sm1608301ywb.116.2024.04.08.02.22.57 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Apr 2024 02:22:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw1-f175.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-615019cd427so34839717b3.3 for ; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 02:22:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a0d:cc46:0:b0:615:3858:d153 with SMTP id o67-20020a0dcc46000000b006153858d153mr7543765ywd.2.1712568177240; Mon, 08 Apr 2024 02:22:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240405103803.2785764-1-ciara.power@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: Luca Boccassi Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 10:22:45 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 22.11] crypto/ipsec_mb: fix incorrectly setting cipher keys To: "Power, Ciara" Cc: "stable@dpdk.org" , "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" , "Ji, Kai" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 08:17, Power, Ciara wrote: > > Hi Luca, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Luca Boccassi > > Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 3:44 PM > > To: Power, Ciara > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org; De Lara Guarch, Pablo ; > > Ji, Kai > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 22.11] crypto/ipsec_mb: fix incorrectly setting cipher keys > > > > On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 at 11:46, Ciara Power wrote: > > > > > > The encryption and decryption keys were incorrectly being reset based > > > on authentication algorithm after already being set earlier in the > > > code based on cipher algorithm. > > > In cases when 3DES was used, the keys were being incorrectly > > > overwritten. > > > > > > For CPU path, there is no need to have the keys set for XCBC and CMAC > > > cases. > > > > > > Fixes: 010230a1543b ("crypto/aesni_mb: support Chacha20-Poly1305") > > > Fixes: b0a37e8cd2ac ("crypto/ipsec_mb: fix cipher key setting") > > > Fixes: a2c6d3f34f90 ("crypto/aesni_mb: support CPU crypto") > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ciara Power > > > --- > > > Cc: pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com > > > --- > > > drivers/crypto/ipsec_mb/pmd_aesni_mb.c | 14 -------------- > > > 1 file changed, 14 deletions(-) > > > > I have already tagged rc1 - is this fixing a regression introduced in > > rc1 itself? If not, how important is it, could it wait for the next release? > > No, it is fixing an issue that existed before 22.11 itself. I have also sent the fix for 21.11 LTS. > The bug was reported by an external user as it caused seg faults for their algorithm use case, so the sooner the better for fix to be merged. > Would it be suitable for merge in rc2? I am not planning an rc2, but if you can confirm you have tested this patch on top of rc1 on the affected platform then I can merge it for the final release.