[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240812110600.GB14300@lst.de>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 13:06:00 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@...app.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...nel.org>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
Boris Pismenny <borisp@...dia.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Maxim Mikityanskiy <maxtram95@...il.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [Bug report] NFS patch breaks TLS device-offloaded TX zerocopy
On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 12:13:51PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/08/2024 12:02, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 01:07:47PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
>>> Adding Maxim Mikityanskiy, he might have some insights.
>> I think the important part to find out is if the in-kernel TLS API
>> has a limitation to PAGE_SIZE buffer segments, or not.
>
> I don't see why it should. Also note that sw tls does not suffer from
> this. Maybe Jakub can add more light here in case something was missed?
I don't see why it should either, but instead of assuming we should
make it clear what the assumptions are before going further.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists