> -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Watson [mailto:davejwat...@fb.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 11:05 PM > To: Vakul Garg <vakul.g...@nxp.com> > Cc: linux-cry...@vger.kernel.org; il...@mellanox.com; > avia...@mellanox.com; da...@davemloft.net; netdev@vger.kernel.org; > Gilad Ben-Yossef <gi...@benyossef.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] tls: Add support for encryption using async offload > accelerator > > On 01/31/18 05:22 PM, Vakul Garg wrote: > > > > On second though in stable we should probably just disable async > > > > tfm allocations. > > > > It's simpler. But this approach is still good for -next > > > > > > > > > > > > Gilad > > > > > > I agree with Gilad, just disable async for now. > > > > > > > How to do it? Can you help with the api name? > > *aead = crypto_alloc_aead("gcm(aes)", 0, CRYPTO_ALG_ASYNC); > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit > hub.com%2Fktls%2Fnet_next_ktls%2Fcommit%2Ff3b9b402e755e4b0623fa8 > 3f88137173fc249f2d&data=02%7C01%7Cvakul.garg%40nxp.com%7Cf1c707 > 9af97e48c9e89308d568d1633a%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635% > 7C0%7C0%7C636530170887502735&sdata=qTdwbuDsCRmK1UHAYiOcwfPC > U%2FPXgKg%2BICh%2F2N0b9Nw%3D&reserved=0 > The above patch you authored works fine. I tested it on my test platform. I have nothing to contribute here. Would you send it to stable kernel yourself or still want me to do it?
> > > If the flag MSG_DONTWAIT is set, we should be returning -EINPROGRESS > > > and not wait for a response. I had started working on a patch for > > > that, but it's pretty tricky to get right. > > > > Can you point me to your WIP code branch for this? > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit > hub.com%2Fktls%2Fnet_next_ktls%2Fcommit%2F9cc839aa551ed972d148ec > ebf353b25ee93543b9&data=02%7C01%7Cvakul.garg%40nxp.com%7Cf1c70 > 79af97e48c9e89308d568d1633a%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635 > %7C0%7C0%7C636530170887502735&sdata=0ASwmPPXXSGCXpBGes9vBma > y8Gojv0wSUGAOOOjBExc%3D&reserved=0 > > > If MSG_DONTWAIT is not used, will it be sane if enqueue the crypto > > request to accelerator and return to user space back so that user > > space can send more plaintext data while crypto accelerator is working in > parallel? > > Right, that's roughly what the above does. I believe the tricky unfinished > part > was getting poll() to work correctly if there is an async crypto request > outstanding. Currently the tls poll() just relies on backpressure from > do_tcp_sendpages. I wanted to add async accelerator support for ktls where multiple crypto requests can be pipelined. But since you are already doing it, I won't duplicate the efforts. I would leverage your work on my platform, test it and try to contribute from here.
