>
> TLS records should be attached to skbs ?
>
> It seems more reasonable to free TLS when skb are freed, and not in
> general tcp_ack() path.
We've considered it, but then we would have to touch all the places the TCP
stack splits or merges SKBs. Seems more intrusive.
>
> >
> > > 2) Since
On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 19:21 +, Ilya Lesokhin wrote:
> > 1) tcp_ack() is already very expensive.
> >
>
> I'm not sure how what we should do with that comment. We need
> Some trigger to free TLS records. tcp_ack seemed like a reasonable
> Trigger.
TLS records should be attached to skbs ?
It
> 1) tcp_ack() is already very expensive.
>
I'm not sure how what we should do with that comment. We need
Some trigger to free TLS records. tcp_ack seemed like a reasonable
Trigger.
> 2) Since you do not pass any state here, this looks very suspicious to
> me.
>
The state we need is the
On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 13:10 +0200, Ilya Lesokhin wrote:
> Called when a TCP segment is acknowledged.
> Could be used by application protocols who hold additional
> metadata associated with the stream data
> This is required by TLS device offload to release
> metadata associated with acknowledged
Called when a TCP segment is acknowledged.
Could be used by application protocols who hold additional
metadata associated with the stream data
This is required by TLS device offload to release
metadata associated with acknowledged TLS records.
Signed-off-by: Boris Pismenny