From: Dave Watson Subject: Re: [RFC crypto v3 8/9] chtls: Register the ULP Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:11:44 -0800 Message-ID: <20180130171144.GA42146@davejwatson-mba> References: <20180125210850.GA69117@davejwatson-mba> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: "sd@queasysnail.net" , "herbert@gondor.apana.org.au" , "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" , "ganeshgr@chelsio.co" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "davem@davemloft.net" , Boris Pismenny , Ilya Lesokhin To: Atul Gupta Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org On 01/30/18 06:51 AM, Atul Gupta wrote: > What I was referring is that passing "tls" ulp type in setsockopt > may be insufficient to make the decision when multi HW assist Inline > TLS solution exists. Setting the ULP doesn't choose HW or SW implementation, I think that should be done later when setting up crypto with setsockopt(SOL_TLS, TLS_TX, struct crypto_info). Any reason we can't use ethtool to choose HW vs SW implementation, if available on the device? > Some HW may go beyond defining sendmsg/sendpage of the prot and > require additional info to setup the env? Also, we need to keep > vendor specific code out of tls_main.c i.e anything other than > base/sw_tx prot perhaps go to hw driver. Sure, but I think we can add hooks to tls_main to do this without a new ULP.