[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <686fc6bda1124_fd3882945b@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2025 09:57:17 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Daniel Zahka <daniel.zahka@...il.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
Boris Pismenny <borisp@...dia.com>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
Patrisious Haddad <phaddad@...dia.com>,
Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>,
Jianbo Liu <jianbol@...dia.com>,
Dragos Tatulea <dtatulea@...dia.com>,
Rahul Rameshbabu <rrameshbabu@...dia.com>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/19] tcp: add datapath logic for PSP with inline key
exchange
Daniel Zahka wrote:
>
>
> On 7/6/25 12:16 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >> @@ -689,6 +690,7 @@ void tcp_skb_entail(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> >> tcb->seq = tcb->end_seq = tp->write_seq;
> >> tcb->tcp_flags = TCPHDR_ACK;
> >> __skb_header_release(skb);
> >> + psp_enqueue_set_decrypted(sk, skb);
> > If touching the tcp hot path, maybe a static branch.
>
> Ack. Do you imagine we would key the branch on pas creation or on psd
> creation?
That's kind of immaterial, as long as it gets set before the majority
of hot patch calls.
Since psp_dev is the first object created, that is the more precise
starting point for when PSP as a whole becomes active.
> Our preference would be to defer the change to its own series
> if the code is acceptable as is.
I would also defer it to a stand-alone patch or set of patches, to
avoid complicating existing patches.
And as the series is already over 15, fine to move to a follow-on
series too.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists