> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shally Verma [mailto:shal...@marvell.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 11:17 AM
> To: Kusztal, ArkadiuszX <arkadiuszx.kusz...@intel.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: 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?
[AK] - We pass as is (with 0), it will still produce correct result (4096 bits
are size upper limit for QAT currently). So there may be any number of leading
zeroes up to 512bytes, and we don't care. Right now there are discrepancies
between OPENSSL and QAT in that as QAT will return shifted data and OPENSSL
will not, we need to choose one way or other.
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
