14/11/2018 11:12, Joseph, Anoob:
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>
> >
> > Hi Anoob,
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Akhil, Konstantin,
> > >
> > > Wouldn't the new element, userdata, conflict with the one referred by
> > >
> > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session_set_user_data()
> > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session_get_user_data()
> > >
> > > Do you mind a name change for either? Or do you have a clear picture of
> > > when
> > one should be used over the other?
> >
> > Yes, Fiona also pointed to that naming collision.
> > Current suggestion is to name this new element 'opaque_data' or so.
> > Konstantin
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Anoob
> > >
> > > From: Akhil Goyal <akhil.go...@nxp.com>
> > > > On 10/11/2018 7:50 PM, Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> > > > > Below are details and reasoning for proposed changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1.rte_cryptodev_sym_session_init()/ rte_cryptodev_sym_session_clear()
> > > > > operate based on cytpodev device id, though inside
> > > > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session device specific data is addressed
> > > > > by driver id (not device id).
> > > > > That creates a problem with current implementation when we have
> > > > > two or more devices with the same driver used by the same session.
> > > > > Consider the following example:
> > > > >
> > > > > struct rte_cryptodev_sym_session *sess;
> > > > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session_init(dev_id=X, sess, ...);
> > > > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session_init(dev_id=Y, sess, ...);
> > > > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session_clear(dev_id=X, sess);
> > > > >
> > > > > After that point if X and Y uses the same driver,
> > > > > then sess can't be used by device Y any more.
> > > > > The reason for that - driver specific (not device specific)
> > > > > data per session, plus there is no information
> > > > > how many device instances use that data.
> > > > > Probably the simplest way to deal with that issue -
> > > > > add a reference counter per each driver data.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2.rte_cryptodev_sym_session_set_user_data() and
> > > > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session_get_user_data() -
> > > > > with current implementation there is no defined way for the user to
> > > > > determine what is the max allowed size of the private data.
> > > > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session_set_user_data() just blindly copies
> > > > > user provided data without checking memory boundaries violation.
> > > > > To overcome that issue propose to add 'uint16_t priv_size' into
> > > > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session structure.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3.rte_cryptodev_sym_session contains an array of variable size for
> > > > > driver specific data.
> > > > > Though number of elements in that array is determined by static
> > > > > variable nb_drivers, that could be modified by
> > > > > rte_cryptodev_allocate_driver().
> > > > > That construction seems to work ok so far, as right now users
> > > > > register
> > > > > all their PMDs at startup, though it doesn't mean that it would
> > > > > always
> > > > > remain like that.
> > > > > To make it less error prone propose to add 'uint16_t nb_drivers'
> > > > > into the rte_cryptodev_sym_session structure.
> > > > > At least that allows related functions to check that provided
> > > > > driver id wouldn't overrun variable array boundaries,
> > > > > again it allows to determine size of already allocated session
> > > > > without accessing global variable.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4.#2 and #3 above implies that now each struct
> > rte_cryptodev_sym_session
> > > > > would have sort of readonly type data (init once at allocation
> > > > > time,
> > > > > keep unmodified through session life-time).
> > > > > That requires more changes in current cryptodev implementation:
> > > > > Right now inside cryptodev framework both rte_cryptodev_sym_session
> > > > > and driver specific session data are two completely different
> > > > > sctrucures
> > > > > (e.g. struct cryptodev_sym_session and struct null_crypto_session).
> > > > > Though current cryptodev implementation implicitly assumes that
> > > > > driver
> > > > > will allocate both of them from within the same mempool.
> > > > > Plus this is done in a manner that they override each other fields
> > > > > (reuse the same space - sort of implicit C union).
> > > > > That's probably not the best programming practice,
> > > > > plus make impossible to have readonly fields inside both of them.
> > > > > To overcome that situation propose to changed an API a bit, to
> > > > > allow
> > > > > to use two different mempools for these two distinct data
> > > > > structures.
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. Add 'uint64_t userdata' inside struct rte_cryptodev_sym_session.
> > > > > I suppose that self-explanatory, and might be used in a lot of
> > > > > places
> > > > > (would be quite useful for ipsec library we develop).
> > > > >
> > > > > The new proposed layout for rte_cryptodev_sym_session:
> > > > > struct rte_cryptodev_sym_session {
> > > > > uint64_t userdata;
> > > > > /**< Can be used for external metadata */
> > > > > uint16_t nb_drivers;
> > > > > /**< number of elements in sess_data array */
> > > > > uint16_t priv_size;
> > > > > /**< session private data will be placed after sess_data */
> > > > > __extension__ struct {
> > > > > void *data;
> > > > > uint16_t refcnt;
> > > > > } sess_data[0];
> > > > > /**< Driver specific session material, variable size */
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > Adding maintainers to ack this deprecation notice. These changes
> > > > will impact all the PMDs and everyone should agree to these changes.
> > > >
> > > > from NXP dpaa_sec, dpaa2_sec, caam_jr PMDs:
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.go...@nxp.com>
>
> With the naming changes,
> Acked-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.jos...@caviumnetworks.com>
Applied
