netdev - Re: [for-next 4/6] net/mlx5: FPGA, Add basic support for Innova

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 7 Jun 2017 02:48:44 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com, ilant@...lanox.com,
        saeedm@....mellanox.co.il, dledford@...hat.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        jsorensen@...com, andy.shevchenko@...il.com,
        linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org, yi1.li@...ux.intel.com,
        borisp@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [for-next 4/6] net/mlx5: FPGA, Add basic support for Innova

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 03:44:53PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 03:01:51PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
> > Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:55:33 -0700
> > 
> > > If in the future mlx will make it into the nic in a way that
> > > encryption shares all memory management logic and there is no fpga
> > > at all then it indeed will be similar to tc offload. Right now it's
> > > not and needs different sw architecture.
> > 
> > If the visible effect is identical, I fundamentally disagree with you.
> > 
> > I don't care if there is a frog sitting on the PHY that transforms
> > the packets, it's all the same if the visible behavior is identical.
> 
> that frog is a good example why we disagree.
> I need to check the pulse of that frog and last time it ate.

It is probably over-engineered for a single frog, but maybe you could
use a modified RFC 2795?

    Andrew