On 03/21/2018 02:01 PM, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> From: Ilya Lesokhin <[email protected]>
>
> This patch adds a generic infrastructure to offload TLS crypto to a
...
> +
> +static inline int tls_push_record(struct sock *sk,
> + struct tls_context *ctx,
> + struct tls_offload_context *offload_ctx,
> + struct tls_record_info *record,
> + struct page_frag *pfrag,
> + int flags,
> + unsigned char record_type)
> +{
> + skb_frag_t *frag;
> + struct tcp_sock *tp = tcp_sk(sk);
> + struct page_frag fallback_frag;
> + struct page_frag *tag_pfrag = pfrag;
> + int i;
> +
> + /* fill prepand */
> + frag = &record->frags[0];
> + tls_fill_prepend(ctx,
> + skb_frag_address(frag),
> + record->len - ctx->prepend_size,
> + record_type);
> +
> + if (unlikely(!skb_page_frag_refill(ctx->tag_size, pfrag, GFP_KERNEL))) {
> + /* HW doesn't care about the data in the tag
> + * so in case pfrag has no room
> + * for a tag and we can't allocate a new pfrag
> + * just use the page in the first frag
> + * rather then write a complicated fall back code.
> + */
> + tag_pfrag = &fallback_frag;
> + tag_pfrag->page = skb_frag_page(frag);
> + tag_pfrag->offset = 0;
> + }
> +
If HW does not care, why even trying to call skb_page_frag_refill() ?
If you remove it, then we remove one seldom used path and might uncover bugs
This part looks very suspect to me, to be honest.
