From: Herbert Xu Subject: Re: Fwd: crypto accelerator driver problems Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:09:39 +1000 Message-ID: <20110126070939.GA18150@gondor.apana.org.au> References: <20101230211900.GA22742@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: Hamid Nassiby Return-path: Received: from helcar.apana.org.au ([209.40.204.226]:35277 "EHLO fornost.hengli.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751223Ab1AZHJl (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jan 2011 02:09:41 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:26:33AM +0330, Hamid Nassiby wrote: > > As you know, I posted my problem again to crypto list and no one answered. > Now I > emphasize one aspect of the problem as a concept related to IPSec protocol, > free > of my problem's nature, and I hope to get some guidelines at this time. The > question is as following: > If IPSec delivers IP packets to hardware crypto accelerator in sequential > manner > (e.g, packets in order: 1, 2, 3, ..., 36, 37, 38,...) and crypto accelerator > possibly returns back packets out of entering order to IPSec (e.g, packet > 37 is returned back before the packet 36 to IPSec, so the order of packets > is > not the same before entering crypto accelerator and after exiting it); Is it > possible to rise any problem here? We do not allow such reordering. All crypto drivers must ensure ordering within a single tfm. Between different tfms there is no ordering requirement. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt