netdev - Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 4/5] net/mlx5: Introduce TLS TX offload hardware bits and structures

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: <CALzJLG-em1w+Lgf2UutbG2Lzq8bx3zUqoLGx26H2_EXOuuk+jg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jul 2019 13:06:58 -0400
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
        Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 4/5] net/mlx5: Introduce TLS TX offload hardware
 bits and structures

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:27 AM <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 07:39:32AM +0000, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> > From: Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>
> >
> > Add TLS offload related IFC structs, layouts and enumerations.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/mlx5/device.h   |  14 +++++
> >  include/linux/mlx5/mlx5_ifc.h | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  2 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> <...>
>
> > @@ -2725,7 +2739,8 @@ struct mlx5_ifc_traffic_counter_bits {
> >
> >  struct mlx5_ifc_tisc_bits {
> >       u8         strict_lag_tx_port_affinity[0x1];
> > -     u8         reserved_at_1[0x3];
> > +     u8         tls_en[0x1];
> > +     u8         reserved_at_1[0x2];
>
> It should be reserved_at_2.
>

it should be at_1.

> Thanks