netdev - Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v3 0/6] Extend XFRM core to allow full offload configuration

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: <20220829080733.GM566407@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2022 10:07:33 +0200
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
CC:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v3 0/6] Extend XFRM core to allow full offload
 configuration

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 09:26:57AM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 02:36:10PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 16:31:57 +0300 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > >  * I didn't hear any suggestion what term to use instead of
> > >    "full offload", so left it as is. It is used in commit messages
> > >    and documentation only and easy to rename.
> > >  * Added performance data and background info to cover letter
> > >  * Reused xfrm_output_resume() function to support multiple XFRM transformations
> > >  * Add PMTU check in addition to driver .xdo_dev_offload_ok validation
> > >  * Documentation is in progress, but not part of this series yet.
> > 
> > Since the use case is somewhat in question, perhaps switch to RFC
> > postings until the drivers side incl. tc forwarding is implemented?

+1

Please mark it as RFC as long as the full picture is not yet clear.
This is still far away from being ready for merging.

> 
> > Also the perf traces, I don't see them here.
> 
> It is worth to separate it to standalone discussion with a title:
> "why crypto is not fast enough?".

This is not the question. I want to know whether performance
comes from encapsulation/decapsulation offload, or lookup
offload, or something else.

Please provide the traces.

> I don't think that mixed discussions
> about full offload which Steffen said that he is interested and
> research about crypto bottlenecks will be productive. These discussions
> are orthogonal.

I'm interested in a 'full offload' but we need to make sure
this 'full offload' is able to support most of the common
usecases. It is still not clear whether this particular
offload you are proposing is the one that can make it.