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: <9e81c5b4-f319-8b33-5dec-dad19582bde4@chelsio.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:14:55 +0530
From:   Atul Gupta <atul.gupta@...lsio.com>
To:     Dave Watson <davejwatson@...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 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.
>
>> 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.
Current code calls update_sk_prot for TLS_BASE_TX and TLS_SW_TX, future 
Inline TLS assist HWs will add TLS_HW_TX, TLS_OFLD, ... etc additional 
hooks to update sk prots can make code confusing?