[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220830115627.27099213@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 11:56:27 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
"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 Tue, 30 Aug 2022 14:36:52 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> I was meaning rather generically handling the packets in the
> hypervisor side without involving the CPU.
>
> We have customers deploying many different models for this in their
> hypervisor, including a significant deployment using a model like the
> above.
>
> It achieves a kind of connectivity to a VM with 0 hypervisor CPU
> involvement with the vlan push/pop done in HW.
I don't see how that necessitates the full IPsec offload.
Sorry, perhaps I assumed we were on the same page too hastily.
I was referring to a model where the TC rules redirect to a IPsec
tunnel which is then routed to the uplink. All offloaded. Like
we do today for VxLAN encap/decap.
That necessitates full offload, and therefore can be used as a strong
argument for having a full offload in netdev.
> We other use-models, like the offloaded OVS switching model you are
> alluding to, that is Leon has as a followup.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists