Hi Adam,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dybkowski, AdamX
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 4:48 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org; Trahe, Fiona <fiona.tr...@intel.com>; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
> <arkadiuszx.kusz...@intel.com>; akhil.go...@nxp.com
> Cc: Dybkowski, AdamX <adamx.dybkow...@intel.com>
> Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] test/crypto: add more AES GCM tests for QAT PMD
>
> This patch adds 256-bit AES GCM tests for QAT PMD
> (which already existed for AESNI and OpenSSL) and also adds
> a number of negative unit tests for AES GCM for QAT PMD, in order
> to verify authenticated encryption and decryption with modified data.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adam Dybkowski <adamx.dybkow...@intel.com>
> ---
These are a great set of tests to add, thanks.
However, I find the silent terminology misleading. as the fn is not silent,
other errors may print, debug may print and depending on the flag passed in the
compare error may print.
Also, if the test fails for some other reason than the one it should, this will
be missed.
What you want to do is catch specific expected errors so I'd suggest following:
leave test_authenticated_encryption() name as is.
Add a fail_expected enum to crypto_unittest_params, with elements like NONE,
DIGEST_CORRUPT, ENCRYPTED_DATA_CORRUPT, UNENCRYPTED_DATA_CORRUPT
Don't suppress the errors, instead in wrapper fns, print "Negative test -
errors are expected" at top of each negative test, corrupt the input and set
the appropriate fail.
In test_authenticated_encryption() and test_authenticated_encryption() use the
enum to check for the expected failure.
Does that make sense?
