[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DM6PR13MB3705D1657D48FD6C31753E04FC3F9@DM6PR13MB3705.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2022 01:28:20 +0000
From: Yinjun Zhang <yinjun.zhang@...igine.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Chengtian Liu <chengtian.liu@...igine.com>,
HuanHuan Wang <huanhuan.wang@...igine.com>,
Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
oss-drivers <oss-drivers@...igine.com>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v3 3/3] nfp: implement xfrm callbacks and expose
ipsec offload feature to upper layer
On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 14:40:53 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 09:46:46AM +0000, Yinjun Zhang wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 08:14:12 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > <...>
> > > > +
> > > > + /* General */
> > > > + switch (x->props.mode) {
> > > > + case XFRM_MODE_TUNNEL:
> > > > + cfg->ctrl_word.mode = NFP_IPSEC_PROTMODE_TUNNEL;
> > > > + break;
> > > > + case XFRM_MODE_TRANSPORT:
> > > > + cfg->ctrl_word.mode = NFP_IPSEC_PROTMODE_TRANSPORT;
> > > > + break;
> > >
> > > Why is it important for IPsec crypto? The HW logic must be the same for
> > > all modes. There are no differences between transport and tunnel.
> >
> > As I mentioned above, it's differentiated in HW to support more features.
>
> You are adding crypto offload, so please don't try to sneak "more" features.
>
No sneaking, just have to conform to the design of HW, so that things are not
messed up.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists