Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 13 Aug 2019 15:17:06 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@bootlin.com>
Cc:     Igor Russkikh <Igor.Russkikh@aquantia.com>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "sd@queasysnail.net" <sd@queasysnail.net>,
        "f.fainelli@gmail.com" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "hkallweit1@gmail.com" <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
        "alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com" <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        "allan.nielsen@microchip.com" <allan.nielsen@microchip.com>,
        "camelia.groza@nxp.com" <camelia.groza@nxp.com>,
        Simon Edelhaus <Simon.Edelhaus@aquantia.com>,
        Pavel Belous <Pavel.Belous@aquantia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 6/9] net: macsec: hardware offloading
 infrastructure
Message-ID: <20190813131706.GE15047@lunn.ch>
References: <20190808140600.21477-1-antoine.tenart@bootlin.com>
 <20190808140600.21477-7-antoine.tenart@bootlin.com>
 <e96fa4ae-1f2c-c1be-b2d8-060217d8e151@aquantia.com>
 <20190813085817.GA3200@kwain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190813085817.GA3200@kwain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:58:17AM +0200, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> I think this question is linked to the use of a MACsec virtual interface
> when using h/w offloading. The starting point for me was that I wanted
> to reuse the data structures and the API exposed to the userspace by the
> s/w implementation of MACsec. I then had two choices: keeping the exact
> same interface for the user (having a virtual MACsec interface), or
> registering the MACsec genl ops onto the real net devices (and making
> the s/w implementation a virtual net dev and a provider of the MACsec
> "offloading" ops).
> 
> The advantages of the first option were that nearly all the logic of the
> s/w implementation could be kept and especially that it would be
> transparent for the user to use both implementations of MACsec.

Hi Antoine

We have always talked about offloading operations to the hardware,
accelerating what the linux stack can do by making use of hardware
accelerators. The basic user API should not change because of
acceleration. Those are the general guidelines.

It would however be interesting to get comments from those who did the
software implementation and what they think of this architecture. I've
no personal experience with MACSec, so it is hard for me to say if the
current architecture makes sense when using accelerators.

	Andrew