netdev - Re: [PATCH v9 01/25] net: Introduce direct data placement tcp offload

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 26 Jan 2023 13:53:22 +0100
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Shai Malin <smalin@...dia.com>, Aurelien Aptel <aaptel@...dia.com>,
        "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "sagi@...mberg.me" <sagi@...mberg.me>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
        "kbusch@...nel.org" <kbusch@...nel.org>,
        "axboe@...com" <axboe@...com>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Boris Pismenny <borisp@...dia.com>,
        "aurelien.aptel@...il.com" <aurelien.aptel@...il.com>,
        "malin1024@...il.com" <malin1024@...il.com>,
        Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...dia.com>,
        Yoray Zack <yorayz@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 01/25] net: Introduce direct data placement tcp
 offload

Hi,

On Thu, 2023-01-26 at 09:47 +0000, Shai Malin wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 at 10:52, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> 
> > Have you considered avoiding adding the above fields here, and instead
> > pass them as argument for the setup() H/W offload operation?
> 
> After researching the implication of such a change, we don’t believe it's right.
> This entire work was designed to be based on the sock structure, and this approach
> will be needed also for the next part of our work (Tx), in which we will use the 
> ops and the queue also from the socket.
> 
> We defined the ULD_DDP as a generic layer that can support different 
> vendors/devices and different ULPs so using only one ops will make it 
> more difficult to maintain from our point of view.

I'm fine with the above. 

> I will also add that we are addressing review comments for 1.5 years in order 
> to fine tune this design, and such a change will open the fundamentals.

I understand my above comment landed quite too late, but I guessed it
was better to ask the question this late then never.

No opposition to the current design on my side.

Thanks,

Paolo