Hi Hemant,
> >>> This patch introduce new RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_CPU_CRYPTO action type
> >>> to
> >>> security library. The type represents performing crypto operation with CPU
> >>> cycles. The patch also includes a new API to process crypto operations in
> >>> bulk and the function pointers for PMDs.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zh...@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> lib/librte_security/rte_security.c | 16 +++++++++
> >>> lib/librte_security/rte_security.h | 51
> >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>> lib/librte_security/rte_security_driver.h | 19 +++++++++++
> >>> lib/librte_security/rte_security_version.map | 1 +
> >>> 4 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
> >>> b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
> >>> index bc81ce15d..0f85c1b59 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
> >>> +++ b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
> >>> @@ -141,3 +141,19 @@ rte_security_capability_get(struct rte_security_ctx
> >>> *instance,
> >>>
> >>> return NULL;
> >>> }
> >>> +
> >>> +void
> >>> +rte_security_process_cpu_crypto_bulk(struct rte_security_ctx *instance,
> >>> + struct rte_security_session *sess,
> >>> + struct rte_security_vec buf[], void *iv[], void *aad[],
> >>> + void *digest[], int status[], uint32_t num)
> >>> +{
> >>> + uint32_t i;
> >>> +
> >>> + for (i = 0; i < num; i++)
> >>> + status[i] = -1;
> >>> +
> >>> + RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_RET(*instance->ops->process_cpu_crypto_bulk);
> >>> + instance->ops->process_cpu_crypto_bulk(sess, buf, iv,
> >>> + aad, digest, status, num);
> >>> +}
> >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.h
> >>> b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.h
> >>> index 96806e3a2..5a0f8901b 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.h
> >>> +++ b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.h
> >>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ extern "C" {
> >>> #endif
> >>>
> >>> #include <sys/types.h>
> >>> +#include <sys/uio.h>
> >>>
> >>> #include <netinet/in.h>
> >>> #include <netinet/ip.h>
> >>> @@ -272,6 +273,20 @@ struct rte_security_pdcp_xform {
> >>> uint32_t hfn_threshold;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> +struct rte_security_cpu_crypto_xform {
> >>> + /** For cipher/authentication crypto operation the authentication may
> >>> + * cover more content then the cipher. E.g., for IPSec ESP encryption
> >>> + * with AES-CBC and SHA1-HMAC, the encryption happens after the ESP
> >>> + * header but whole packet (apart from MAC header) is authenticated.
> >>> + * The cipher_offset field is used to deduct the cipher data pointer
> >>> + * from the buffer to be processed.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * NOTE this parameter shall be ignored by AEAD algorithms, since it
> >>> + * uses the same offset for cipher and authentication.
> >>> + */
> >>> + int32_t cipher_offset;
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>> /**
> >>> * Security session action type.
> >>> */
> >>> @@ -286,10 +301,14 @@ enum rte_security_session_action_type {
> >>> /**< All security protocol processing is performed inline during
> >>> * transmission
> >>> */
> >>> - RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_LOOKASIDE_PROTOCOL
> >>> + RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_LOOKASIDE_PROTOCOL,
> >>> /**< All security protocol processing including crypto is
> >>> performed
> >>> * on a lookaside accelerator
> >>> */
> >>> + RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_CPU_CRYPTO
> >>> + /**< Crypto processing for security protocol is processed by CPU
> >>> + * synchronously
> >>> + */
> >> though you are naming it cpu crypto, but it is more like raw packet
> >> crypto, where you want to skip mbuf/crypto ops and directly wants to
> >> work on raw buffer.
> > Yes, but we do wat to do that (skip mbuf/crypto ops and use raw buffer),
> > because this API is destined for SW backed implementation.
> > For that case crypto-ops , mbuf, enqueue/dequeue are just unnecessary
> > overhead.
> I agree, we are also planning to take advantage of it for some specific
> use-cases in future.
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> /** Security session protocol definition */
> >>> @@ -315,6 +334,7 @@ struct rte_security_session_conf {
> >>> struct rte_security_ipsec_xform ipsec;
> >>> struct rte_security_macsec_xform macsec;
> >>> struct rte_security_pdcp_xform pdcp;
> >>> + struct rte_security_cpu_crypto_xform cpucrypto;
> >>> };
> >>> /**< Configuration parameters for security session */
> >>> struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *crypto_xform;
> >>> @@ -639,6 +659,35 @@ const struct rte_security_capability *
> >>> rte_security_capability_get(struct rte_security_ctx *instance,
> >>> struct rte_security_capability_idx *idx);
> >>>
> >>> +/**
> >>> + * Security vector structure, contains pointer to vector array and the
> >>> length
> >>> + * of the array
> >>> + */
> >>> +struct rte_security_vec {
> >>> + struct iovec *vec;
> >>> + uint32_t num;
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >> Just wondering if you want to change it to *in_vec and *out_vec, that
> >> will be helpful in future, if the out-of-place processing is required
> >> for CPU usecase as well?
> > I suppose this is doable, though right now we don't plan to support such
> > model.
> They will come handy in future. I plan to use it in future and we can
> skip the API/ABI breakage, if the placeholder are present
> >
> >>> +/**
> >>> + * Processing bulk crypto workload with CPU
> >>> + *
> >>> + * @param instance security instance.
> >>> + * @param sess security session
> >>> + * @param buf array of buffer SGL vectors
> >>> + * @param iv array of IV pointers
> >>> + * @param aad array of AAD pointers
> >>> + * @param digest array of digest pointers
> >>> + * @param status array of status for the function to
> >>> return
> >>> + * @param num number of elements in each array
> >>> + *
> >>> + */
> >>> +__rte_experimental
> >>> +void
> >>> +rte_security_process_cpu_crypto_bulk(struct rte_security_ctx *instance,
> >>> + struct rte_security_session *sess,
> >>> + struct rte_security_vec buf[], void *iv[], void *aad[],
> >>> + void *digest[], int status[], uint32_t num);
> >>> +
> >> Why not make the return as int, to indicate whether this API completely
> >> failed or processed or have some valid status to look into?
> > Good point, will change as suggested.
>
> I have another suggestions w.r.t iv, aad, digest etc. Why not put them
> in a structure, so that you will
>
> be able to add/remove the variable without breaking the API prototype.
Just to confirm, you are talking about something like:
struct rte_security_vec {
struct iovec *vec;
uint32_t num;
};
struct rte_security_sym_vec {
struct rte_security_vec buf;
void *iv;
void *aad;
void *digest;
};
rte_security_process_cpu_crypto_bulk(struct rte_security_ctx *instance,
struct rte_security_session *sess, struct rte_security_sym_vec buf[],
int status[], uint32_t num);
?
We thought about such way, though for PMD it would be
more plausible to have same type of params grouped together,
i.e. void *in[], void *out[], void *digest[], ...
Another thing - above grouping wouldn't help to avoid ABI breakage,
in case we'll need to add new field into rte_security_sym_vec
(though it might help to avoid API breakage).
In theory other way is also possible:
struct rte_security_sym_vec {
struct rte_security_vec *buf;
void **iv;
void **aad;
void **digest;
};
rte_security_process_cpu_crypto_bulk(struct rte_security_ctx *instance,
struct rte_security_session *sess, struct rte_security_sym_vec *buf,
int status[], uint32_t num);
And that might help for both ABI and API stability,
but it looks really weird that way (at least to me).
Also this API is experimental and I suppose needs to stay experimental for
few releases before we are sure nothing important is missing,
so probably API/ABI stability is not that high concern for it right now.
Konstantin
