-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Watson [mailto:davejwat...@fb.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 10:14 PM
To: Atul Gupta <atul.gu...@chelsio.com>
Cc: s...@queasysnail.net; herb...@gondor.apana.org.au;
linux-cry...@vger.kernel.org; ganes...@chelsio.co; netdev@vger.kernel.org;
da...@davemloft.net; Boris Pismenny <bor...@mellanox.com>; Ilya Lesokhin
<il...@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC crypto v3 8/9] chtls: Register the ULP
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?
Yes, this is connection and record layer offload, and the reason I used
different ulp type, need to see what additional info or check can help setup
the required sk prot.
