[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230208171646.052e62fd@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2023 17:16:46 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pull-request: mlx5-next 2023-01-24 V2
On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 20:59:59 -0400 Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Who said IP configuration.
>
> Please explain to me your vision how we could do IPSEC in rdma and
> continue to use an IP address owned by netdev while netdev is also
> running IPSEC on the same IP address for netdev traffic.
I'm no expert on IPsec but AFAIK it doesn't treat the entire endpoint
as a single unit.
> I can't see how it is even technically possible.
>
> Tell me how the NIC knows, on a packet by packet basis, if the IPSEC
> or IKE packet should be delivered to netdev or to RDMA.
Just a forwarding problem. Whether NIC matches on UDP port or ESP+SPI
programmed via some random API is a detail.
Could you please go back to answering the question of how we deliver
on the compromise that was established to merge the full xfrm offload?
There's only so much time I can spend circling the subject.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists