[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AM4PR0501MB27235B47E8E4DDA2B9E8B757D40F0@AM4PR0501MB2723.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:31:24 +0000
From: Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@...lanox.com>
To: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.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 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.
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
> > + percpu_down_read(&device_offload_lock);
> > + netdev = get_netdev_for_sock(sk);
> > + if (!netdev) {
> > + pr_err("%s: netdev not found\n", __func__);
>
> _ratelimit?
>
Thanks, we will fix it in the future.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists