> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kusztal, ArkadiuszX <arkadiuszx.kusz...@intel.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 2:06 PM
> To: Shally Verma <shal...@marvell.com>; Nowak, DamianX
> <damianx.no...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; Ayuj Verma
> <ayve...@marvell.com>; Sunila Sahu <ss...@marvell.com>; Kanaka Durga
> Kotamarthy <kkotamar...@marvell.com>; Anoob Joseph
> <ano...@marvell.com>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya
> <pathr...@marvell.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/1] test: new test structure for
> asymmetric crypto
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shally Verma [mailto:shal...@marvell.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 9:18 AM
> > To: Nowak, DamianX <damianx.no...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
> > <arkadiuszx.kusz...@intel.com>; Ayuj Verma <ayve...@marvell.com>;
> > Sunila Sahu <ss...@marvell.com>; Kanaka Durga Kotamarthy
> > <kkotamar...@marvell.com>; Anoob Joseph <ano...@marvell.com>;
> Narayana
> > Prasad Raju Athreya <pathr...@marvell.com>
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/1] test: new test structure for
> > asymmetric crypto
> >
> > Hi Damian, Fiona, Arek
> >
> > Though am bit late to come back to this. But I have question on
> > mod_exp test vector.
> > Please see below.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Damian Nowak
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 3:15 PM
> > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Cc: fiona.tr...@intel.com; arkadiuszx.kusz...@intel.com; Damian
> > > Nowak <damianx.no...@intel.com>
> > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/1] test: new test structure for
> > > asymmetric crypto
> > >
> > > This patch adds new test structure for modexp and modinv for
> > > asymmetric cryptography
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Damian Nowak <damianx.no...@intel.com>
...
> > > +static const struct
> > > +modex_test_data modex_test_case[] = { {
> > > + .description = "Modular Exponentiation "
> > > + "(mod=128, base=20, exp=3, res=128)",
> > > + .xform_type = RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_MODEX,
> > ...
> > > + .modulus = {
> > > + .data = {
> > > + 0xb3, 0xa1, 0xaf, 0xb7, 0x13, 0x08, 0x00, 0x0a,
> > There's already a testvector mod_p[] in file with leading 0. Where as
> > I see this one duplicate of that but without leading 0.
> > Could you tell me if you ever tested with mod_p[] with leading 0 and
> > if your qat PMD passed that?
>
> [AK] - Hi Shally,
> The problem with this vector is that it has 1024bit long number but
> sizeof(mod_p) Is 129 bytes (1032 bit).
> It is no problem for QAT to get correct result, but test will fail because QAT
> PMD will return 129 bytes of date (with leading zero, number right-shifted)
> so comparison will fail. This is the same question as padding NONE for RSA.
> Should we trim zeroes, or shouldn't we.
[Shally] Ya. Now, I correlate changes that you proposed to another RSA xform
patch. Because Spec simply expect
Key input as positive integer and does not know if its DER formatted input.
So, I have one question here: How QAT is handling leading 0? Do you pass data
as is to HW with 0 in it and it is still able
to produce correct result for you? Or, you take care in PMD to remove it and
then append it back later at o/p?
In case, you pass to HW, then does all bytes after 0 store correct o/p?
> >
> > > + 0x35, 0xdc, 0x2b, 0x20, 0x8d, 0xa1, 0xb5, 0xce,
> > > + 0x47, 0x8a, 0xc3, 0x80, 0xf4, 0x7d, 0x4a, 0xa2,
> > > + 0x62, 0xfd, 0x61, 0x7f, 0xb5, 0xa8, 0xde, 0x0a,
> > > + 0x17, 0x97, 0xa0, 0xbf, 0xdf, 0x56, 0x5a, 0x3d,
> > > + 0x51, 0x56, 0x4f, 0x70, 0x70, 0x3f, 0x63, 0x6a,
> > > + 0x44, 0x5b, 0xad, 0x84, 0x0d, 0x3f, 0x27, 0x6e,
> > > + 0x3b, 0x34, 0x91, 0x60, 0x14, 0xb9, 0xaa, 0x72,
> > > + 0xfd, 0xa3, 0x64, 0xd2, 0x03, 0xa7, 0x53, 0x87,
> > > + 0x9e, 0x88, 0x0b, 0xc1, 0x14, 0x93, 0x1a, 0x62,
> > > + 0xff, 0xb1, 0x5d, 0x74, 0xcd, 0x59, 0x63, 0x18,
> > > + 0x11, 0x3d, 0x4f, 0xba, 0x75, 0xd4, 0x33, 0x4e,
> > > + 0x23, 0x6b, 0x7b, 0x57, 0x44, 0xe1, 0xd3, 0x03,
> > > + 0x13, 0xa6, 0xf0, 0x8b, 0x60, 0xb0, 0x9e, 0xee,
> > > + 0x75, 0x08, 0x9d, 0x71, 0x63, 0x13, 0xcb, 0xa6,
> > > + 0x81, 0x92, 0x14, 0x03, 0x22, 0x2d, 0xde, 0x55
> > > + },
> > > + .len = 128
> > > + },
> > > + .result_len = 128
> > > +},
> > ....
> > > /* modular operation test data */
> > > uint8_t base[] = {
> > > 0xF8, 0xBA, 0x1A, 0x55, 0xD0, 0x2F, 0x85,
> > > --
> > > 2.7.4
