On 02/23/18 04:58 PM, Atul Gupta wrote:
> > 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.
I still don't follow. If it doesn't impact SW, then what is it doing?
According to the comment, we're moving to SW tx, where sk_prot will be
&tls_prot[TLS_SW_TX], and the unhash function you set here in
TLS_BASE_TX won't be called.
