[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180130171144.GA42146@davejwatson-mba>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:11:44 -0800
From: Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>
To: Atul Gupta <atul.gupta@...lsio.com>
CC: "sd@...asysnail.net" <sd@...asysnail.net>,
"herbert@...dor.apana.org.au" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
"ganeshgr@...lsio.co" <ganeshgr@...lsio.co>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Boris Pismenny <borisp@...lanox.com>,
Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC crypto v3 8/9] chtls: Register the ULP
On 01/30/18 06:51 AM, Atul Gupta wrote:
> What I was referring is that passing "tls" ulp type in setsockopt
> may be insufficient to make the decision when multi HW assist Inline
> TLS solution exists.
Setting the ULP doesn't choose HW or SW implementation, I think that
should be done later when setting up crypto with
setsockopt(SOL_TLS, TLS_TX, struct crypto_info).
Any reason we can't use ethtool to choose HW vs SW implementation, if
available on the device?
> Some HW may go beyond defining sendmsg/sendpage of the prot and
> require additional info to setup the env? Also, we need to keep
> vendor specific code out of tls_main.c i.e anything other than
> base/sw_tx prot perhaps go to hw driver.
Sure, but I think we can add hooks to tls_main to do this without a
new ULP.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists