-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Watson [mailto:davejwat...@fb.com]
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 2:39 AM
To: Atul Gupta <atul.gu...@chelsio.com>
Cc: 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
<1513769897-26945-1-git-send-email-atul.gu...@chelsio.com>
On 12/20/17 05:08 PM, Atul Gupta wrote:
> +static void __init chtls_init_ulp_ops(void) {
> + chtls_base_prot = tcp_prot;
> + chtls_base_prot.hash = chtls_hash;
> + chtls_base_prot.unhash = chtls_unhash;
> + chtls_base_prot.close = chtls_lsk_close;
> +
> + chtls_cpl_prot = chtls_base_prot;
> + chtls_init_rsk_ops(&chtls_cpl_prot, &chtls_rsk_ops,
> + &tcp_prot, PF_INET);
> + chtls_cpl_prot.close = chtls_close;
> + chtls_cpl_prot.disconnect = chtls_disconnect;
> + chtls_cpl_prot.destroy = chtls_destroy_sock;
> + chtls_cpl_prot.shutdown = chtls_shutdown;
> + chtls_cpl_prot.sendmsg = chtls_sendmsg;
> + chtls_cpl_prot.recvmsg = chtls_recvmsg;
> + chtls_cpl_prot.sendpage = chtls_sendpage;
> + chtls_cpl_prot.setsockopt = chtls_setsockopt;
> + chtls_cpl_prot.getsockopt = chtls_getsockopt;
> +}
Much of this file should go in tls_main.c, reusing as much as possible. For
example it doesn't look like the get/set sockopts have changed at all for chtls.
Agree, should common code and anything other than TLS_BASE_TX/TLS_SW_TX prot
should go in vendor specific file/driver. Since, prot require redefinition for
hardware the code is kept in chtls_main.c
> +
> +static int __init chtls_register(void) {
> + chtls_init_ulp_ops();
> + register_listen_notifier(&listen_notifier);
> + cxgb4_register_uld(CXGB4_ULD_TLS, &chtls_uld_info);
> + tcp_register_ulp(&tcp_chtls_ulp_ops);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void __exit chtls_unregister(void) {
> + unregister_listen_notifier(&listen_notifier);
> + tcp_unregister_ulp(&tcp_chtls_ulp_ops);
> + chtls_free_all_uld();
> + cxgb4_unregister_uld(CXGB4_ULD_TLS);
> +}
The idea with ULP is that there is one ULP hook per protocol, not per driver.
One thought is that apps/lib calling setsockopt pass the required ulp type [tls
or chtls or xtls], this enables any HW assist to define base_prot as required
and keep common code [tls_main] independent of underlying HW.
If we are to have single TLS ULP hook [good from user point] then need a way to
determine which Inline tls hw is used? System with multiple Inline TLS capable
hw and differing functionality would require checks in tls_main to exercise
that specific functionality/callback?
