From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 6/6] tls: Add generic NIC offload
 infrastructure.
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:18:53 -0200
Message-ID: <20171219161853.GE6122@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20171218111033.13256-1-ilyal@mellanox.com>
 <20171218111033.13256-7-ilyal@mellanox.com>
 <20171218195335.GB6122@localhost.localdomain>
 <AM4PR0501MB27235B47E8E4DDA2B9E8B757D40F0@AM4PR0501MB2723.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <20171219151138.GD6122@localhost.localdomain>
 <AM4PR0501MB272304FEA861384F0F7895BCD40F0@AM4PR0501MB2723.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "davejwatson@fb.com" <davejwatson@fb.com>,
        "tom@herbertland.com" <tom@herbertland.com>,
        "hannes@stressinduktion.org" <hannes@stressinduktion.org>,
        Boris Pismenny <borisp@mellanox.com>,
        Aviad Yehezkel <aviadye@mellanox.com>,
        Liran Liss <liranl@mellanox.com>
To: Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@mellanox.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50582 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750763AbdLSQS5 (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:18:57 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR0501MB272304FEA861384F0F7895BCD40F0@AM4PR0501MB2723.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 03:38:16PM +0000, Ilya Lesokhin wrote:
> Tuesday, December 19, 2017 5:12 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> 
> > > I'm not quite sure what you mean by "no net_device's are registered"
> > > Presumably you mean there is no device that implements the
> > > NETIF_F_HW_TLS_TX capability yet.
> > 
> > Not really. Let me try again. This patchset is using the expression "tls_device".
> > When I read that, I expect a new interface type, like a tunnel, that would be
> > created on top of another interface that has the offloading capability. That's
> > why I'm confused. IMHO "tls_offload" is a better fit. Makes sense?
> > 
> 
> We don't expose a new interface. An existing netdev does the offload.
> 
> The xfrm layer also calls the offload layer xfrm_device and It also doesn't need to
> add another interface to offload ipsec to a netdev.

Hm right, there is xfrm_dev_init() and others, but there is also
XFRM_OFFLOAD as the config define and not XFRM_DEVICE.

> 
> I thought about calling it tls_hw or tls_hw_offload.
> The problem is that the important distinction here is that the 
> offload is done by a netdev.
> tls_sw can also use hw offload if you have the required 
> memory to memory crypto engine and crypto_alloc_aead("gcm(aes)", 0, 0); 
> decides on using it.

Now I can see the confusion in both ways, thanks.
And now I don't have a preference either.

  Marcelo