netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 6/6] tls: Add generic NIC offload infrastructure.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:11:39 -0200
From:   Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:     Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@...lanox.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "davejwatson@...com" <davejwatson@...com>,
        "tom@...bertland.com" <tom@...bertland.com>,
        "hannes@...essinduktion.org" <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        Boris Pismenny <borisp@...lanox.com>,
        Aviad Yehezkel <aviadye@...lanox.com>,
        Liran Liss <liranl@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 6/6] tls: Add generic NIC offload
 infrastructure.

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 07:31:24AM +0000, Ilya Lesokhin wrote:
> On Mon, Monday, December 18, 2017 9:54 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 01:10:33PM +0200, Ilya Lesokhin wrote:
> > > This patch adds a generic infrastructure to offload TLS crypto to a
> > > network devices. It enables the kernel TLS socket to skip encryption
> > > and authentication operations on the transmit side of the data path.
> > > Leaving those computationally expensive operations to the NIC.
> > 
> > I have a hard time understanding why this was named 'tls_device' if no
> > net_device's are registered.
> > 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by "no net_device's are registered"
> Presumably you mean there is no device that implements the 
> NETIF_F_HW_TLS_TX capability yet.

Not really. Let me try again. This patchset is using the expression
"tls_device". When I read that, I expect a new interface type, like a
tunnel, that would be created on top of another interface that has the
offloading capability. That's why I'm confused. IMHO "tls_offload" is
a better fit. Makes sense?

> I'll just say that the IPSEC device offload infrastructure was also submitted
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d77e38e612a017480157fe6d2c1422f42cb5b7e3
> before the first implementation
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/bebb23e6cb02d2fc752905e39d09ff6152852c6c
> 
> And we did provide a link to an implementation 
> https://github.com/Mellanox/tls-offload/tree/tls_device_v3
> for people who want to take a look.
> Unfortunately it is not ready for upstream submission yet

Yep, although I still have to get there.

Thanks,
Marcelo