-----Original Message----- From: Dave Watson [mailto:davejwatson@xxxxxx] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 2:39 AM To: Atul Gupta <atul.gupta@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-crypto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ganeshgr@xxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Boris Pismenny <borisp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [RFC crypto v3 8/9] chtls: Register the ULP <1513769897-26945-1-git-send-email-atul.gupta@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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?
