-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Watson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 9:53 PM
To: Atul Gupta <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; Ganesh GR
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Crypto v7 03/12] tls: support for inline tls
On 02/22/18 11:21 PM, Atul Gupta wrote:
> @@ -403,6 +431,15 @@ static int do_tls_setsockopt_tx(struct sock *sk, char
> __user *optval,
> goto err_crypto_info;
> }
>
> + rc = tls_offload_dev_absent(sk);
> + if (rc == -EINVAL) {
> + goto out;
> + } else if (rc == -EEXIST) {
> + /* Retain HW unhash for cleanup and move to SW Tx */
> + sk->sk_prot[TLS_BASE_TX].unhash =
> + sk->sk_prot[TLS_FULL_HW].unhash;
I'm still confused by this, it lookes like it is modifying the global tls_prots
without taking a lock? And modifying it for all sockets, not just this one?
One way to fix might be to always set an unhash in TLS_BASE_TX, and then have a
function pointer unhash in ctx.
code enters do_tls_setsockopt_tx only for those offload capable dev which does
not define FULL_HW setsockopt as done by chtls, unhash prot update is required
for cleanup/revert of setup done in tls_hw_hash. This update does not impact SW
or other Inline HW path.
> +static void tls_hw_unhash(struct sock *sk) {
> + struct tls_device *dev;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&device_mutex);
> + list_for_each_entry(dev, &device_list, dev_list) {
> + if (dev->unhash)
> + dev->unhash(dev, sk);
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&device_mutex);
> + sk->sk_prot->unhash(sk);
I would have thought unhash() here was tls_hw_unhash, doesn't the original
callback need to be saved like the other ones (set/getsockopt, etc) in
tls_init? Similar for hash().
Yes, good to store it or have it the way I had in v6 [tcp_prot.hash], can this
correction go in patch than submit the whole series?
It looks like in patch 11 you directly call tcp_prot.hash/unhash, so it doesn't
have this issue.
