netdev - Re: [RFC crypto v3 8/9] chtls: Register the ULP

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20180131164347.GA34501@davejwatson-mba>
Date:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 08:43:47 -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 01/31/18 04:14 PM, Atul Gupta wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tuesday 30 January 2018 10:41 PM, Dave Watson wrote:
> > 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).
> setsockpot [mentioned above] is quite late for driver to enable HW
> implementation, we require something as early as tls_init [setsockopt(sock,
> SOL_TCP, TCP_ULP, "tls", sizeof("tls"))], for driver to set HW prot and
> offload connection beside Inline Tx/Rx.
> > 
> > Any reason we can't use ethtool to choose HW vs SW implementation, if
> > available on the device?
> Thought about it,  the interface index is not available to fetch netdev and
> caps check to set HW prot eg. bind [prot.hash] --> tls_hash to program HW.

Perhaps this is the part I don't follow - why do you need to override
hash and check for LISTEN?  I briefly looked through the patch named
"CPL handler definition", this looks like it is a full TCP offload?