Tuesday, December 19, 2017 5:12 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > I'm not quite sure what you mean by "no net_device's are registered"
> > Presumably you mean there is no device that implements the
> > NETIF_F_HW_TLS_TX capability yet.
>
> Not really. Let me try again. This patchset is using the expression
> "tls_device".
> When I read that, I expect a new interface type, like a tunnel, that would be
> created on top of another interface that has the offloading capability. That's
> why I'm confused. IMHO "tls_offload" is a better fit. Makes sense?
>
We don't expose a new interface. An existing netdev does the offload.
The xfrm layer also calls the offload layer xfrm_device and It also doesn't
need to
add another interface to offload ipsec to a netdev.
I thought about calling it tls_hw or tls_hw_offload.
The problem is that the important distinction here is that the
offload is done by a netdev.
tls_sw can also use hw offload if you have the required
memory to memory crypto engine and crypto_alloc_aead("gcm(aes)", 0, 0);
decides on using it.
