netdev - Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 4/5] net/mlx5: Remove tls vs. ktls separation as it is the same

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]

Date:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 10:20:49 -0700
From:   Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH mlx5-next 4/5] net/mlx5: Remove tls vs. ktls separation
 as it is the same

On 05 Apr 08:43, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 05:33:22PM -0700, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>> On 04 Apr 15:08, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>
>> >
>> > After removal FPGA TLS, we can remove tls->ktls indirection too,
>> > as it is the same thing.

[...]

> > rename drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_accel/{tls_stats.c => ktls_stats.c} (76%)
>>
>> Why not ktls_*.c => tls_*.c ?
>
>Mostly because other drivers use _ktls_ name for this type of functionality.
>Plus internally, Tariq suggested to squash everything into ktls.
>
>>
>> Since we now have one TLS implementation, it would've been easier to maybe
>> repurpose TLS to be KTLS only and avoid renaming every TLS to KTLS in all
>> functions and files.
>>
>> So just keep tls.c and all mlx5_tls_xyz functions and implement ktls
>> directly in them, the renaming will be done only on the ktls implementation
>> part of the code rather than in every caller.
>
>Should I do it or keep this patch as is?
>

Keep it, i don't have any strong feeling about this,
I just wanted to reduce the patch size.