Herbert Xu <herbert <at> gondor.apana.org.au> writes: > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:26:33AM +0330, Hamid Nassiby wrote: > > > > As you know, I posted my problem again to crypto list and no one answered. > > Now I > > emphasize one aspect of the problem as a concept related to IPSec protocol, > > free > > of my problem's nature, and I hope to get some guidelines at this time. The > > question is as following: > > If IPSec delivers IP packets to hardware crypto accelerator in sequential > > manner > > (e.g, packets in order: 1, 2, 3, ..., 36, 37, 38,...) and crypto accelerator > > possibly returns back packets out of entering order to IPSec (e.g, packet > > 37 is returned back before the packet 36 to IPSec, so the order of packets > > is > > not the same before entering crypto accelerator and after exiting it); Is it > > possible to rise any problem here? > > We do not allow such reordering. All crypto drivers must ensure > ordering within a single tfm. Between different tfms there is no > ordering requirement. > > Cheers, Hello Herbert, Does this mean that processing of all the crypto requests from a single tfm must be serialized even if they execute on multiple different cores? Regards -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
