@@ -419,8 +419,9 @@ static int bond_ipsec_add_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
xs->xso.real_dev = slave->dev;
bond->xs = xs;
- if (!(slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops
- && slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add)) {
+ if (!slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
+ !slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_add ||
+ netif_is_bond_master(slave->dev)) {
slave_warn(bond_dev, slave->dev, "Slave does not support ipsec offload\n");
rcu_read_unlock();
return -EINVAL;
@@ -453,8 +454,9 @@ static void bond_ipsec_del_sa(struct xfrm_state *xs)
xs->xso.real_dev = slave->dev;
- if (!(slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops
- && slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete)) {
+ if (!slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
+ !slave->dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_state_delete ||
+ netif_is_bond_master(slave->dev)) {
slave_warn(bond_dev, slave->dev, "%s: no slave xdo_dev_state_delete\n", __func__);
goto out;
}
@@ -479,8 +481,9 @@ static bool bond_ipsec_offload_ok(struct sk_buff *skb, struct xfrm_state *xs)
if (BOND_MODE(bond) != BOND_MODE_ACTIVEBACKUP)
return true;
- if (!(slave_dev->xfrmdev_ops
- && slave_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_offload_ok)) {
+ if (!slave_dev->xfrmdev_ops ||
+ !slave_dev->xfrmdev_ops->xdo_dev_offload_ok ||
+ netif_is_bond_master(slave_dev)) {
slave_warn(bond_dev, slave_dev, "%s: no slave xdo_dev_offload_ok\n", __func__);
return false;
}
bonding interface can be nested and it supports ipsec offload. So, it allows setting the nested bonding + ipsec scenario. But code does not support this scenario. So, it should be disallowed. interface graph: bond2 | bond1 | eth0 The nested bonding + ipsec offload may not a real usecase. So, disallowing this scenario is fine. Fixes: 18cb261afd7b ("bonding: support hardware encryption offload to slaves") Signed-off-by: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@gmail.com> --- v1 -> v2: - no change drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 15 +++++++++------ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)