Re: [PATCH net 0/5] macsec: offload-related fixes

[Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 10:24:28AM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> 2022-10-23, 10:52:56 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 03:54:28PM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > > 2022-10-18, 09:28:08 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 04:03:56PM +0200, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> > > > > Quoting Leon Romanovsky (2022-10-14 13:03:57)
> > > > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 09:43:45AM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > > > > > > 2022-10-14, 09:13:39 +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 04:15:38PM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > 
> > <...>
> > 
> > > > > - With the revert: IPsec and MACsec can be offloaded to the lower dev.
> > > > >   Some features might not propagate to the MACsec dev, which won't allow
> > > > >   some performance optimizations in the MACsec data path.
> > > > 
> > > > My concern is related to this sentence: "it's not possible to offload macsec
> > > > to lower devices that also support ipsec offload", because our devices support
> > > > both macsec and IPsec offloads at the same time.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't want to see anything (even in commit messages) that assumes that IPsec
> > > > offload doesn't exist.
> > > 
> > > I don't understand what you're saying here. Patch #1 from this series
> > > is exactly about the macsec device acknowledging that ipsec offload
> > > exists. The rest of the patches is strictly macsec stuff and says
> > > nothing about ipsec. Can you point out where, in this series, I'm
> > > claiming that ipsec offload doesn't exist?
> > 
> > All this conversation is about one sentence, which I cited above - "it's not possible
> > to offload macsec to lower devices that also support ipsec offload". From the comments,
> > I think that you wanted to say "macsec offload is not working due to performance
> > optimization, where IPsec offload feature flag was exposed from lower device." Did I get
> > it correctly, now?
> 
> Yes. "In the current state" (that I wrote in front of the sentence you
> quoted) refers to the changes introduced by commit c850240b6c41. The
> details are present in the commit message for patch 1.
> 
> Do you object to the revert, if I rephrase the justification, and then
> re-add the features that make sense in net-next?

I don't have any objections.

Thanks

> 
> -- 
> Sabrina
>