HI Declan
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Doherty, Declan [mailto:declan.dohe...@intel.com]
>Sent: 09 July 2018 20:25
>To: Verma, Shally <shally.ve...@cavium.com>; pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com
>Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Athreya, Narayana Prasad
><narayanaprasad.athr...@cavium.com>; Murthy, Nidadavolu
><nidadavolu.mur...@cavium.com>; Sahu, Sunila <sunila.s...@cavium.com>; Gupta,
>Ashish <ashish.gu...@cavium.com>; Kartha,
>Umesh <umesh.kar...@cavium.com>
>Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] lib/cryptodev: add asymmetric algos in
>cryptodev
>
>External Email
>
>On 06/07/2018 3:28 PM, Verma, Shally wrote:
>> Hi Declan
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Doherty, Declan [mailto:declan.dohe...@intel.com]
>>> Sent: 05 July 2018 20:24
>>> To: Verma, Shally <shally.ve...@cavium.com>; pablo.de.lara.gua...@intel.com
>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Athreya, Narayana Prasad
>>> <narayanaprasad.athr...@cavium.com>; Murthy, Nidadavolu
>>> <nidadavolu.mur...@cavium.com>; Sahu, Sunila <sunila.s...@cavium.com>;
>>> Gupta, Ashish <ashish.gu...@cavium.com>;
>Kartha,
>>> Umesh <umesh.kar...@cavium.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/4] lib/cryptodev: add asymmetric algos
>>> in cryptodev
>>>
>>> External Email
>>>
>>> Hey Shally,
>>>
>>> just a few things inline below mainly concerned with the need to be able
>>> to support session-less operations in future PMDs. I think with a few
>>> minor changes to the API now it should allow session-less to be
>>> supported later without the need for a major rework of the APIs, I don't
>>> think this should cause any major rework to your PMD just the adoption
>>> of some new more explicit op types.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Declan
>>>
>>> On 03/07/2018 4:24 PM, Shally Verma wrote:
>>>> Add rte_crypto_asym.h with supported xfrms
>>>> and associated op structures and APIs
>>>>
>>>> API currently supports:
>>>> - RSA Encrypt, Decrypt, Sign and Verify
>>>> - Modular Exponentiation and Inversion
>>>> - DSA Sign and Verify
>>>> - Deffie-hellman private key exchange
>>>> - Deffie-hellman public key exchange
>>>> - Deffie-hellman shared secret compute
>>>> - Deffie-hellman public/private key pair generation
>>>> using xform chain
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shally Verma <shally.ve...@caviumnetworks.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sunila Sahu <sunila.s...@caviumnetworks.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ashish Gupta <ashish.gu...@caviumnetworks.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Umesh Kartha <umesh.kar...@caviumnetworks.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> lib/librte_cryptodev/Makefile | 1 +
>>>> lib/librte_cryptodev/meson.build | 3 +-
>>>> lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h | 496
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 3 files changed, 499 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/Makefile b/lib/librte_cr
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> +typedef struct rte_crypto_param_t {
>>>> + uint8_t *data;
>>>> + /**< pointer to buffer holding data */
>>>> + rte_iova_t iova;
>>>> + /**< IO address of data buffer */
>>>> + size_t length;
>>>> + /**< length of data in bytes */
>>>> +} rte_crypto_param;
>>>
>>> What is the intended way for this memory to be allocated,
>>
>> [Shally] It should be pointer to flat buffers and added only to input/output
>> data to/from
>> asymmetric crypto engine.
>>
>>> it seems like
>>> there might be a more general requirement in DPDK for IO addressable
>>> memory (compression? other hardware acceleators implemented on FPGAs)
>>> than just asymmetric crypto, will we end up needing to support features
>>> like scatter gather lists in this structure?
>>
>> [Shally] I don’t anticipate that we would need to support scatter-gather
>> data buffers as far as it is used for asymmetric.
>> And I'm not aware if we have requirement to support it for asymmetric
>> processing since data size is usually small for
>> such operations. Thus, app is expected to send linear buffers for
>> input/output.
>>
>> Does that answer your question? Or did I miss anything?
>>
>
>Sure I understand the rationale.
>
>>
>>> btw I think this is
>>> probably fine for the moment as it will be expermential but I think it
>>> will need to be addressed before the removal of the expermential tag.
>>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> + RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_MODINV,
>>>
>>> Would prefer if this was _MOD_INV :)
>>>
>>>> + /**< Modular Inverse
>>>> + * Perform Modulus inverse b^(-1) mod n
>>>> + */
>>>> + RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_MODEX,
>>>
>>> any this was _MOD_EX :)
>>
>> [Shally] fine will do name change.
>>
>>>
>>>> + /**< Modular Exponentiation
>>>> + * Perform Modular Exponentiation b^e mod n
>>>> + */
>>>> + RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_TYPE_LIST_END
>>>> + /**< End of list */
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * Asymmetric crypto operation type variants
>>>> + */
>>>> +enum rte_crypto_asym_op_type {
>>>> + RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_ENCRYPT,
>>>> + /**< Asymmetric Encrypt operation */
>>>> + RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_DECRYPT,
>>>> + /**< Asymmetric Decrypt operation */
>>>> + RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_SIGN,
>>>> + /**< Signature Generation operation */
>>>> + RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_VERIFY,
>>>> + /**< Signature Verification operation */
>>>> + RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_PRIVATE_KEY_GENERATE,
>>>> + /**< DH Private Key generation operation */
>>>> + RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_PUBLIC_KEY_GENERATE,
>>>> + /**< DH Public Key generation operation */
>>>> + RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_SHARED_SECRET_COMPUTE,
>>>> + /**< DH Shared Secret compute operation */
>>>> + RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_LIST_END
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>
>>> I think that having generic operation types which may or may not apply
>>> to all of the defined xforms is confusing from a user perspective and in
>>> the longer term will make it impossible to support session-less
>>> asymmetric operations. If we instead do something like
>>>
>>> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_RSA_ENCRYPT,
>>> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_RSA_DECRYPT,
>>> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_RSA_SIGN,
>>> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_RSA_VERIFY,
>>> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_DH_KEY_GENERATE,
>>> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_DH_SHARED_SECRET_COMPUTE,
>>> etc...
>>>
>>> Then the op type becomes very explicit and will allow session-less
>>> operations to be supported by PMDs. This shouldn't have any impact on
>>> your current implementation other than updating the op type.
>>>
>>
>> [Shally] Ok, so you suggest to merge xform and op_type (including keeping
>> op_type in one place) for simplicity sake.
>>
>> If we take this change, then I will prefer to keep it as xforms rather than
>> op_types, such as,
>>
>> enum rte_crypto_asym_xform_types {
>> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_RSA_ENCRYPT,
>> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_RSA_SIGN,
>> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_DSA_SIGN,
>> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_DSA_VERIFY,
>> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_DH_PRIV_KEY_GENERATE,
>> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_DH_PUB_KEY_GENERATE,
>> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_DH_SHARED_SECRET_COMPUTE, .... and so on..
>> }
>>
>> These, when set on a rte_crypto_asym_xform , will work seamlessly for both
>> session and session-less.
>> I also see advantage here to support xform chaining. In this case, op_type
>> in rte_crypto_asym_xx_op_params isn't needed and will
>be removed.
>> It will add bit of repetition though, like RSA_SIGN / DSA_SIGN, but that
>> would occur in any case, if we are merging two types.
>> Does that sound okay?
>
>I would be a bit concerned with dropping the
>rte_crypto_asym_xx_op_params as if we are following the symmetric model,
>the xform should only specify the immutable data in relation to a
>transform and the operation should provide the mutable input data. I'm
>not sure how this would look like for the different asymmetric
>operations but if there are transforms that don't have immutable data
>then it would make more sense not to have a specific xform data
>structure for that and pass the data through that transformations
>operation structure.
[Shally] Believe there's some misunderstanding here. My suggestion was not to
drop asym_xx_op_params, but just an op_type field from op_params if xform types
are redefined as suggested above. However, I see below you have another
proposal so I will clarify more there.
As a side note, Asym works on similar principle as symmetric i.e. immutable
data in xform and mutable in op_params. So, op_params definitely will be there.
>
>>
>> We were about to submit Openssl PMD with asym support today. But I would
>> hold back till we align on this.
>> ...
>>
>
>Ok, I think I had missed part of the complexity of the chained used
>case. I think if we are to follow the symmetric crypto model we end up
>with something along the lines of a fundamental op types - dh, dsa, mod,
>rsa etc.
>
>enum rte_crypto_asym_op_types {
> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_DH,
> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_DSA,
> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_MOD,
> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_RSA,
>};
>
>with a corresponding asym_op as follows.
>
>struct rte_crypto_asym_op {
> union {
> struct rte_cryptodev_asym_session *session;
> /**< Handle for the initialized session context */
> struct rte_crypto_asym_xform *xform;
> };
>
> union {
> struct rte_crypto_asym_dh_op_data dh;
> struct rte_crypto_asym_dsa_op_data dsa;
> struct rte_crypto_asyn_mod_op_data mod;
> struct rte_crypto_asym_rsa_op_data rsa;
> } op_data;
>};
>
>
>In terms of the xform definitions I'm not sure that we should have all
>the different transforms defined in the same enum. If we take the below
>approach, all the specifics of each transform could be split out into
>separate headers, giving a cleaner API. This would see a xform types
>enum which would mirror the operation types:
>
>enum rte_crypto_asym_xform_types {
> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_DH,
> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_DSA,
> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_MOD,
> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_RSA,
>}
>
>with corresponding xforms structures
>
>struct rte_crypto_asym_xform dh;
>struct rte_crypto_asym_xform dsa;
>struct rte_crypto_asym_xform modlus;
>struct rte_crypto_asym_xform rsa;
>
>then within the xforms would define the sub-type of that xform and have
>definitions of the relevant session data which is required, with the
>rsa it might look like something like this:
>
>enum rte_crypto_asym_xform_rsa_types {
> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_RSA_ENCRYPT,
> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_RSA_DECRYPT,
> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_RSA_SIGN,
> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_RSA_VERIFY,
>}
>
>struct rte_crypto_asym_xform rsa {
> enum rte_crypto_asym_op_rsa_types type;
> union {
> struct rte_crypto_asym_xform_rsa_encrypt_data encrypt;
> struct rte_crypto_asym_xform_rsa_decrypt_data decrypt;
> etc...
> } data;
>};
>
>The need for xform sub-type data structure would be dependent on whether
>there was immutable data associated with a particular transform. Also if
>we take this approach it would allow each operation type to be separated
>out into there own headers.
>
[Shally] I'm assuming you are not suggesting any changes to existing
fundamental rte_crypto_asym_op and rte_crypto_asym_xform structures here, as
they're
defined the way you mentioned. Only change I see having a new xform sub-type
in per-xform struct.
Since we already have an enum rte_crypto_asym_op_type {
RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_ENCRYPT,
RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_SIGN
RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_VERIFY
RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_KEY_PAIR_GENERATE and so on...
}
So, we can use existing one into asym_xx_xform structure so every
rte_crypto_asym_xx_xform struct would look like:
struct rte_crypto_xxx_xform {
enum rte_crypto_asym_op_type;
/**< Sign/Verify/Encrypt/Decrypt/key generate/ */
/* other xform params such as public and private key */
}
Since every xform returns bitmask of op_types supported in capability
structure. So, app would know which op types are supported on xform.
Also, I don’t see a need a new define such as OP_RSA/OP_DSA as every op come
associated with session/xform with same information, so relevant xform op
params will be referenced based on that.
Thanks
Shally
>>> ....
>>>
>>>
>>>> + */
>>>> +struct rte_crypto_dh_xform {
>>>> + enum rte_crypto_asym_op_type type;
>>>> + /**< Setup xform for key generate or shared secret compute */
>>>> +
>>>
>>> there is an inconsistency here in terms of were the op_type is defined,
>>> in this case it is in the xform but it other cases RSA, DSA it is
>>> defined in the operation information itself. I don't know of any reason
>>> why it is needed in the xform but I think it must be consistent across
>>> all operations/xforms. Ideally from my perspective it would be in the
>>> rte_crypto_asym_op structure, see below, as this would allow
>>> session/session-less operations to be supported seamlessly.
>>>
>>
>> [Shally] Reason was xform chaining. As per Fiona feedback, we identified
>> requirement to break DH Key pair
>> generation in to two : PRIV_KEY_GENERATION and PUB_KEY_GENERATION, so I had
>> to move this param around.
>> But this will be addressed once we change xform_types as per suggestion
>> above.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * Asymmetric Cryptographic Operation.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Structure describing asymmetric crypto operation params.
>>>> + *
>>>> + */
>>>> +struct rte_crypto_asym_op {
>>>> + struct rte_cryptodev_asym_session *session;
>>>> + /**< Handle for the initialised session context */
>>>> +
>>>> + __extension__
>>>> + union {
>>>> + struct rte_crypto_rsa_op_param rsa;
>>>> + struct rte_crypto_mod_op_param modex;
>>>> + struct rte_crypto_mod_op_param modinv;
>>>> + struct rte_crypto_dh_op_param dh;
>>>> + struct rte_crypto_dsa_op_param dsa;
>>>> + };
>>>> +} __rte_cache_aligned;
>>>> +
>>> Relating to my comment on position of the op_type and the minor change
>>> of having an union of session/xform in the rte_crypto_asym_op structure
>>> would then enable sessionless support to be added seamless in the future
>>> with minimal effect to the current proposal.
>>
>> [Shally] Again, this will also be resolved with change to xform_types
>>
>>>
>>> struct rte_crypto_asym_op {
>>> - struct rte_cryptodev_asym_session *session;
>>> - /**< Handle for the initialised session context */
>>> + enum rte_crypto_asym_op_type op_type;
>>> +
>>> + union {
>>> + struct rte_cryptodev_asym_session *session;
>>> + /**< Handle for the initialised session context */
>>> + struct rte_crypto_asym_xform *xform;
>>> + };
>>>
>> [Shally] Ok. Will add this change. But then I'll have to check if crypto PMD
>> has support to reflect which type of mode it supports?
>>
>The sess_type=RTE_CRYPTO_OP_WITH_SESSION/RTE_CRYPTO_OP_SESSIONLESS
>should be set in the outer crypto_op struct, so if the PMD doesn't
>support the selected sess_type, it should just fail the enqueue and
>possibly log an error.
>
>> Thanks for review.
>> Shally
>>
>>> __extension__
>>>
>>>
>>>> +#ifdef __cplusplus
>>>> +}
>>>> +#endif
>>>> +
>>>> +#endif /* _RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_H_ */
>>>>
>>
