[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c3c636b4-b46b-ddab-6446-bc55349a96e3@grimberg.me>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:01:15 +0200
From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To: Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Bryan Tan <bryantan@...are.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Israel Rukshin <israelr@...dia.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
Selvin Xavier <selvin.xavier@...adcom.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Vishnu Dasa <vdasa@...are.com>,
Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next 00/13] Add RDMA inline crypto support
>>> Today, if one would like to run both features using a capable device
>>> then
>>> the PI will be offloaded (no SW fallback) and the Encryption will be
>>> using
>>> SW fallback.
>> It's not just running both - it's offering both as currently registering
>> these fatures is mutally incompatible.
>
> For sure we would like to offer both, but as mentioned before, this will
> require blk layer instrumentation and ib_core instrumentation to some
> pipeline_mr or something like that.
Can you explain what is needed in the block layer that prevents queueing
a request that has PI and crypto ctx?
As for the rdma portion, I don't know enough if this is something
that is supported by the HW and lacks a SW interface, or inherently
unsupported in HW...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists