Re: [RFC crypto v3 0/9] Chelsio Inline TLS

On Monday 22 January 2018 03:46 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:

2017-12-20, 17:03:02 +0530, Atul Gupta wrote:

quoted

RFC series for Chelsio Inline TLS driver (chtls.ko)

Driver use the ULP infrastructure to register chtls as Inline TLS ULP.

I don't think drivers should be registering their own ULP. TLS
offloading should be transparent to userspace, whatever HW ends up
being used. If each driver implements its own ULP, the application has
to be aware of what HW and what driver it's running on.

using different ULP is derived from 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9746381/

I think this offload should rely on a generic infrastructure, not
build its own private interface. Look at the current kTLS code, the
proposal for an offload infrastructure [0] from Mellanox, and see how
you can fit your driver into that, and extend what's missing.

[0] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/849984/

The driver indeed used the proposed offload infrastructure and extended 
for Inline Rx/Tx

[...]

quoted

Atul Gupta (9):
   chtls: structure and macro definiton
   cxgb4: Inline TLS FW Interface
   cxgb4: LLD driver changes to enable TLS
   chcr: Key Macro
   chtls: Key program
   chtls: CPL handler definition
   chtls: Inline crypto request Tx/Rx
   chtls: Register the ULP
   Makefile Kconfig

That patchset is split so that each patch touches a separate set of
files, and the description of the contents of each patch is very
limited.  Can you try to group your changes by feature instead?  That
should help you come up with descriptive commit messages as well.

Made all attempts to group the contents based on functionality, the set 
is broken into
driver registration, I/O with crypto Inline request, key handling and 
messages exchanged with
hardware.

Thanks,