Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Mon, 23 May 2022 10:33:49 +0200
From:   Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
To:     Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
Cc:     steffen.klassert@secunet.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,
        davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
        pabeni@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: REGRESSION (?) (Re: [PATCH] net: af_key: add check for
 pfkey_broadcast in function pfkey_process)
Message-ID: <20220523083349.zzgdmoq2bzstxla6@lion.mk-sys.cz>
References: <20220517094231.414168-1-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
 <20220523022438.ofhehjievu2alj3h@lion.mk-sys.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="r6vmbsg4u3vtaqzd"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220523022438.ofhehjievu2alj3h@lion.mk-sys.cz>
Precedence: bulk


--r6vmbsg4u3vtaqzd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 04:24:38AM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> After upgrading from 5.18-rc7 to 5.18 final, my racoon daemon refuses to
> start because it cannot find some algorithms (it says "aes"). I have not
> finished the debugging completely but this patch, mainline commit
> 4dc2a5a8f675 ("net: af_key: add check for pfkey_broadcast in function
> pfkey_process"), seems to be the most promising candidate.

Tested now, reverting commit 4dc2a5a8f675 ("net: af_key: add check for
pfkey_broadcast in function pfkey_process") seems to fix the issue,
after rebuilding the af_key module with this commit reverted and
reloading it, racoon daemon starts and works and /proc/crypto shows
algrorithms it did not without the revert.

We might get away with changing the test to

	if (err && err != -ESRCH)
		return err;

but I'm not sure if bailing up on failed notification broadcast is
really what we want. Also, most other calling sites of pfkey_broadcast()
do not check the return value either so if we want to add the check, it
should probably be done more consistently. So for now, a revert is IMHO
more appropriate.

Michal

--r6vmbsg4u3vtaqzd
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEWN3j3bieVmp26mKO538sG/LRdpUFAmKLRuIACgkQ538sG/LR
dpWMpwgA0INRLLZ4ZINyjhZoeu1j1yh4Mwtsb/aGEW3OB2E+pZHsWwqDwoq++1vH
um5qLGrN6mrKIi9X3LhVKuXry2RGNW8rbTUaXihcg0JFl72XAXySQUwEh13Rn7D9
MgvSq4MznjNLuvfFBEWvkNaYbZ6NTVtlG2thTKi4GfftwsYsDWVQisCI4z2ZZ0Pn
Pd1j8thJreCJSNxoK8ylNyNkCAzLksItEivKz/UM+Y7HMpkI3nYZJLVAUVYZQKO6
97qCnqcMriy3XpDz6IVn6nVUHfGay8bmlfet67IOCrxYghyR47Wy147LP8+tVzrb
O46GqysFnczjK0px39AqsMrgUkp9sQ==
=ZgNq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--r6vmbsg4u3vtaqzd--