From: Dave Watson Subject: Re: [RFC crypto v3 8/9] chtls: Register the ULP Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 08:43:47 -0800 Message-ID: <20180131164347.GA34501@davejwatson-mba> References: <20180125210850.GA69117@davejwatson-mba> <20180130171144.GA42146@davejwatson-mba> <9e81c5b4-f319-8b33-5dec-dad19582bde4@chelsio.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.145.42]:39630 "EHLO mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932099AbeAaQoL (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Jan 2018 11:44:11 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9e81c5b4-f319-8b33-5dec-dad19582bde4@chelsio.com> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/31/18 04:14 PM, Atul Gupta wrote: > > > On Tuesday 30 January 2018 10:41 PM, Dave Watson wrote: > > 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). > setsockpot [mentioned above] is quite late for driver to enable HW > implementation, we require something as early as tls_init [setsockopt(sock, > SOL_TCP, TCP_ULP, "tls", sizeof("tls"))], for driver to set HW prot and > offload connection beside Inline Tx/Rx. > > > > Any reason we can't use ethtool to choose HW vs SW implementation, if > > available on the device? > Thought about it,? the interface index is not available to fetch netdev and > caps check to set HW prot eg. bind [prot.hash] --> tls_hash to program HW. Perhaps this is the part I don't follow - why do you need to override hash and check for LISTEN? I briefly looked through the patch named "CPL handler definition", this looks like it is a full TCP offload?