Hi Akhil,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This action type allows the burst of symmetric
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > crypto
> > > > workload
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > algorithm, key, and direction being processed by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CPU
> > cycles
> > > > > > > > > > > synchronously.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This flexible action type does not require
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > external
> > hardware
> > > > > > > > > involvement,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > having the crypto workload processed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > synchronously,
> > and is
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > performant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than Cryptodev SW PMD due to the saved cycles on
> > removed
> > > > > > "async
> > > > > > > > > > > mode
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simulation" as well as 3 cacheline access of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > crypto
> > ops.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does that mean application will not call the
> > > > > > cryptodev_enqueue_burst
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > corresponding dequeue burst.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, instead it just call
> > rte_security_process_cpu_crypto_bulk(...)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be a new API something like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > process_packets and
> > it
> > > > will
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > crypto processed packets while returning from the API?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, though the plan is that API will operate on raw
> > > > > > > > > > > > > data
> > buffers,
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > mbufs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still do not understand why we cannot do with the
> > > > conventional
> > > > > > > > > crypto lib
> > > > > > > > > > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can understand, you are not doing any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > protocol
> > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > value add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To the crypto processing. IMO, you just need a
> > synchronous
> > > > > > crypto
> > > > > > > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > API which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can be defined in cryptodev, you don't need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > re-create a
> > > > crypto
> > > > > > > > > session
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the name of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Security session in the driver just to do a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > synchronous
> > > > processing.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose your question is why not to have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rte_crypot_process_cpu_crypto_bulk(...) instead?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The main reason is that would require disruptive
> > > > > > > > > > > > > changes in
> > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > > > cryptodev
> > > > > > > > > > > > > API
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (would cause ABI/API breakage).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Session for RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_CPU_CRYPTO
> > need
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > extra
> > > > > > > > > > > > > information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that normal crypto_sym_xform doesn't contain
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (cipher offset from the start of the buffer, might be
> > something
> > > > extra
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > future).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Cipher offset will be part of rte_crypto_op.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > fill/read (+ alloc/free) is one of the main things that
> > > > > > > > > > > slowdown
> > > > current
> > > > > > > > > crypto-op
> > > > > > > > > > > approach.
> > > > > > > > > > > That's why the general idea - have all data that wouldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > change
> > > > from
> > > > > > packet
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > packet
> > > > > > > > > > > included into the session and setup it once at
> > > > > > > > > > > session_init().
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I agree that you cannot use crypto-op.
> > > > > > > > > > You can have the new API in crypto.
> > > > > > > > > > As per the current patch, you only need cipher_offset which
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > can
> > > > have
> > > > > > it as
> > > > > > > > > a parameter until
> > > > > > > > > > You get it approved in the crypto xform. I believe it will
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > beneficial
> > > > in
> > > > > > case of
> > > > > > > > > other crypto cases as well.
> > > > > > > > > > We can have cipher offset at both places(crypto-op and
> > > > cipher_xform). It
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > give flexibility to the user to
> > > > > > > > > > override it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > After having another thought on your proposal:
> > > > > > > > > Probably we can introduce new rte_crypto_sym_xform_types for
> > CPU
> > > > > > related
> > > > > > > > > stuff here?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I also thought of adding new xforms, but that wont serve the
> > > > > > > > purpose
> > for
> > > > > > may be all the cases.
> > > > > > > > You would be needing all information currently available in the
> > current
> > > > > > xforms.
> > > > > > > > So if you are adding new fields in the new xform, the size will
> > > > > > > > be more
> > > > than
> > > > > > that of the union of xforms.
> > > > > > > > ABI breakage would still be there.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you think a valid compression of the AEAD xform can be done,
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > that
> > > > > > can be done for each of the
> > > > > > > > Xforms and we can have a solution to this issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that we can re-use iv.offset for our purposes (for crypto
> > > > > > > offset).
> > > > > > > So for now we can make that path work without any ABI breakage.
> > > > > > > Fan, please feel free to correct me here, if I missed something.
> > > > > > > If in future we would need to add some extra information it might
> > > > > > > require ABI breakage, though by now I don't envision anything
> > particular to
> > > > > > add.
> > > > > > > Anyway, if there is no objection to go that way, we can try to
> > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > these changes for v2.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, after looking at it more deeply it appears not that easy
> > > > > > as I
> > thought
> > > > it
> > > > > > would be :)
> > > > > > Below is a very draft version of proposed API additions.
> > > > > > I think it avoids ABI breakages right now and provides enough
> > > > > > flexibility
> > for
> > > > > > future extensions (if any).
> > > > > > For now, it doesn't address your comments about naming conventions
> > > > (_CPU_
> > > > > > vs _SYNC_) , etc.
> > > > > > but I suppose is comprehensive enough to provide a main idea beyond
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > Akhil and other interested parties, please try to review and provide
> > feedback
> > > > > > ASAP,
> > > > > > as related changes would take some time and we still like to hit
> > > > > > 19.11
> > > > deadline.
> > > > > > Konstantin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_sym.h
> > > > > > b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_sym.h
> > > > > > index bc8da2466..c03069e23 100644
> > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_sym.h
> > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_sym.h
> > > > > > @@ -103,6 +103,9 @@ rte_crypto_cipher_operation_strings[];
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > * This structure contains data relating to Cipher (Encryption and
> > Decryption)
> > > > > > * use to create a session.
> > > > > > + * Actually I was wrong saying that we don't have free space inside
> > xforms.
> > > > > > + * Making key struct packed (see below) allow us to regain 6B that
> > > > > > could
> > be
> > > > > > + * used for future extensions.
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > struct rte_crypto_cipher_xform {
> > > > > > enum rte_crypto_cipher_operation op;
> > > > > > @@ -116,7 +119,25 @@ struct rte_crypto_cipher_xform {
> > > > > > struct {
> > > > > > const uint8_t *data; /**< pointer to key data */
> > > > > > uint16_t length; /**< key length in bytes */
> > > > > > - } key;
> > > > > > + } __attribute__((__packed__)) key;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + /**
> > > > > > + * offset for cipher to start within user provided data
> > > > > > buffer.
> > > > > > + * Fan suggested another (and less space consuming way) -
> > > > > > + * reuse iv.offset space below, by changing:
> > > > > > + * struct {uint16_t offset, length;} iv;
> > > > > > + * to uunamed union:
> > > > > > + * union {
> > > > > > + * struct {uint16_t offset, length;} iv;
> > > > > > + * struct {uint16_t iv_len, crypto_offset}
> > > > > > cpu_crypto_param;
> > > > > > + * };
> > > > > > + * Both approaches seems ok to me in general.
> > > > >
> > > > > No strong opinions here. OK with this one.
> > > > >
> > > > > > + * Comments/suggestions are welcome.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > + uint16_t offset;
> > > >
> > > > After another thought - it is probably a bit better to have offset as a
> > > > separate
> > > > field.
> > > > In that case we can use the same xforms to create both type of sessions.
> > > ok
> > > >
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + uint8_t reserved1[4];
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > /**< Cipher key
> > > > > > *
> > > > > > * For the RTE_CRYPTO_CIPHER_AES_F8 mode of operation,
> > key.data
> > > > will
> > > > > > @@ -284,7 +305,7 @@ struct rte_crypto_auth_xform {
> > > > > > struct {
> > > > > > const uint8_t *data; /**< pointer to key data */
> > > > > > uint16_t length; /**< key length in bytes */
> > > > > > - } key;
> > > > > > + } __attribute__((__packed__)) key;
> > > > > > /**< Authentication key data.
> > > > > > * The authentication key length MUST be less than or equal
> > > > > > to the
> > > > > > * block size of the algorithm. It is the callers
> > > > > > responsibility to
> > > > > > @@ -292,6 +313,8 @@ struct rte_crypto_auth_xform {
> > > > > > * (for example RFC 2104, FIPS 198a).
> > > > > > */
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + uint8_t reserved1[6];
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > struct {
> > > > > > uint16_t offset;
> > > > > > /**< Starting point for Initialisation Vector or
> > > > > > Counter,
> > > > > > @@ -376,7 +399,12 @@ struct rte_crypto_aead_xform {
> > > > > > struct {
> > > > > > const uint8_t *data; /**< pointer to key data */
> > > > > > uint16_t length; /**< key length in bytes */
> > > > > > - } key;
> > > > > > + } __attribute__((__packed__)) key;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + /** offset for cipher to start within data buffer */
> > > > > > + uint16_t cipher_offset;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + uint8_t reserved1[4];
> > > > > >
> > > > > > struct {
> > > > > > uint16_t offset;
> > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > > > > > b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > > > > > index e175b838c..c0c7bfed7 100644
> > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > > > > > @@ -1272,6 +1272,101 @@ void *
> > > > > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session_get_user_data(
> > > > > > struct
> > > > > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session *sess);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > + * After several thoughts decided not to try to squeeze CPU_CRYPTO
> > > > > > + * into existing rte_crypto_sym_session structure/API, but instead
> > > > > > + * introduce an extentsion to it via new fully opaque
> > > > > > + * struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session and additional related API.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What all things do we need to squeeze?
> > > > > In this proposal I do not see the new struct cpu_sym_session defined
> > > > > here.
> > > >
> > > > The plan is to have it totally opaque to the user, i.e. just:
> > > > struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session;
> > > > in public header files.
> > > >
> > > > > I believe you will have same lib API/struct for cpu_sym_session and
> > > > sym_session.
> > > >
> > > > I thought about such way, but there are few things that looks clumsy to
> > > > me:
> > > > 1. Right now there is no 'type' (or so) field inside
> > > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session,
> > > > so it is not possible to easy distinguish what session do you have:
> > > > lksd_sym or
> > > > cpu_sym.
> > > > In theory, there is a hole of 4B inside rte_cryptodev_sym_session, so
> > > > we can
> > add
> > > > some extra field
> > > > here, but in that case we wouldn't be able to use the same xform for
> > > > both
> > > > lksd_sym or cpu_sym
> > > > (which seems really plausible thing for me).
> > > > 2. Majority of rte_cryptodev_sym_session fields I think are
> > > > unnecessary for
> > > > rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session:
> > > > sess_data[], opaque_data, user_data, nb_drivers.
> > > > All that consumes space, that could be used somewhere else instead.
> > > > 3. I am a bit reluctant to touch existing rte_cryptodev API - to avoid
> > > > any
> > > > breakages I can't foresee right now.
> > > > From other side - if we'll add new functions/structs for
> > > > cpu_sym_session we
> > can
> > > > mark it
> > > > and keep it for some time as experimental, so further changes (if
> > > > needed)
> > would
> > > > still be possible.
> > > >
> > >
> > > OK let us assume that you have a separate structure. But I have a few
> > > queries:
> > > 1. how can multiple drivers use a same session
> >
> > As a short answer: they can't.
> > It is pretty much the same approach as with rte_security - each device
> > needs to
> > create/init its own session.
> > So upper layer would need to maintain its own array (or so) for such case.
> > Though the question is why would you like to have same session over multiple
> > SW backed devices?
> > As it would be anyway just a synchronous function call that will be
> > executed on
> > the same cpu.
>
> I may have single FAT tunnel which may be distributed over multiple
> Cores, and each core is affined to a different SW device.
If it is pure SW, then we don't need multiple devices for such scenario.
Device in that case is pure abstraction that we can skip.
> So a single session may be accessed by multiple devices.
>
> One more example would be depending on packet sizes, I may switch between
> HW/SW PMDs with the same session.
Sure, but then we'll have multiple sessions.
BTW, we have same thing now - these private session pointers are just stored
inside the same rte_crypto_sym_session.
And if user wants to support this model, he would also need to store <dev_id,
queue_id>
pair for each HW device anyway.
>
> >
> > > 2. Can somebody use the scheduler pmd for scheduling the different type of
> > payloads for the same session?
> >
> > In theory yes.
> > Though for that scheduler pmd should have inside it's
> > rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session an array of pointers to
> > the underlying devices sessions.
> >
> > >
> > > With your proposal the APIs would be very specific to your use case only.
> >
> > Yes in some way.
> > I consider that API specific for SW backed crypto PMDs.
> > I can hardly see how any 'real HW' PMDs (lksd-none, lksd-proto) will benefit
> > from it.
> > Current crypto-op API is very much HW oriented.
> > Which is ok, that's for it was intended for, but I think we also need one
> > that
> > would be designed
> > for SW backed implementation in mind.
>
> We may re-use your API for HW PMDs as well which do not have requirement of
> Crypto-op/mbuf etc.
> The return type of your new process API may have a status which say
> 'processed'
> Or can be say 'enqueued'. So if it is 'enqueued', we may have a new API for
> raw
> Bufs dequeue as well.
>
> This requirement can be for any hardware PMDs like QAT as well.
I don't think it is a good idea to extend this API for async (lookaside)
devices.
You'll need to:
- provide dev_id and queue_id for each process(enqueue) and dequeuer operation.
- provide IOVA for all buffers passing to that function (data buffers, digest,
IV, aad).
- On dequeue provide some way to associate dequed data and digest buffers with
crypto-session that was used (and probably with mbuf).
So most likely we'll end up with another just version of our current crypto-op
structure.
If you'd like to get rid of mbufs dependency within current crypto-op API that
understandable,
but I don't think we should have same API for both sync (CPU) and async
(lookaside) cases.
It doesn't seem feasible at all and voids whole purpose of that patch.
> That is why a dev-ops would be a better option.
>
> >
> > > When you would add more functionality to this sync API/struct, it will
> > > end up
> > being the same API/struct.
> > >
> > > Let us see how close/ far we are from the existing APIs when the actual
> > implementation is done.
> > >
> > > > > I am not sure if that would be needed.
> > > > > It would be internal to the driver that if synchronous processing is
> > > > supported(from feature flag) and
> > > > > Have relevant fields in xform(the newly added ones which are packed as
> > per
> > > > your suggestions) set,
> > > > > It will create that type of session.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > + * Main points:
> > > > > > + * - Current crypto-dev API is reasonably mature and it is
> > > > > > desirable
> > > > > > + * to keep it unchanged (API/ABI stability). From other side,
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > + * new sync API is new one and probably would require extra
> > > > > > changes.
> > > > > > + * Having it as a new one allows to mark it as experimental,
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > + * affecting existing one.
> > > > > > + * - Fully opaque cpu_sym_session structure gives more flexibility
> > > > > > + * to the PMD writers and again allows to avoid ABI breakages in
> > > > > > future.
> > > > > > + * - process() function per set of xforms
> > > > > > + * allows to expose different process() functions for different
> > > > > > + * xform combinations. PMD writer can decide, does he wants to
> > > > > > + * push all supported algorithms into one process() function,
> > > > > > + * or spread it across several ones.
> > > > > > + * I.E. More flexibility for PMD writer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which process function should be chosen is internal to PMD, how would
> > that
> > > > info
> > > > > be visible to the application or the library. These will get stored
> > > > > in the
> > session
> > > > private
> > > > > data. It would be upto the PMD writer, to store the per session
> > > > > process
> > > > function in
> > > > > the session private data.
> > > > >
> > > > > Process function would be a dev ops just like enc/deq operations and
> > > > > it
> > should
> > > > call
> > > > > The respective process API stored in the session private data.
> > > >
> > > > That model (via devops) is possible, but has several drawbacks from my
> > > > perspective:
> > > >
> > > > 1. It means we'll need to pass dev_id as a parameter to process()
> > > > function.
> > > > Though in fact dev_id is not a relevant information for us here
> > > > (all we need is pointer to the session and pointer to the fuction to
> > > > call)
> > > > and I tried to avoid using it in data-path functions for that API.
> > >
> > > You have a single vdev, but someone may have multiple vdevs for each
> > > thread,
> > or may
> > > Have same dev with multiple queues for each core.
> >
> > That's fine. As I said above it is a SW backed implementation.
> > Each session has to be a separate entity that contains all necessary
> > information
> > (keys, alg/mode info, etc.) to process input buffers.
> > Plus we need the actual function pointer to call.
> > I just don't see what for we need a dev_id in that situation.
>
> To iterate the session private data in the session.
>
> > Again, here we don't need care about queues and their pinning to cores.
> > If let say someone would like to process buffers from the same IPsec SA on 2
> > different cores in parallel, he can just create 2 sessions for the same
> > xform,
> > give one to thread #1 and second to thread #2.
> > After that both threads are free to call process(this_thread_ses, ...) at
> > will.
>
> Say you have a 16core device to handle 100G of traffic on a single tunnel.
> Will we make 16 sessions with same parameters?
Absolutely same question we can ask for current crypto-op API.
You have lookaside crypto-dev with 16 HW queues, each queue is serviced by
different CPU.
For the same SA, do you need a separate session per queue, or is it ok to reuse
current one?
AFAIK, right now this is a grey area not clearly defined.
For crypto-devs I am aware - user can reuse the same session (as PMD uses it
read-only).
But again, right now I think it is not clearly defined and is implementation
specific.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > 2. As you pointed in that case it will be just one process() function
> > > > per device.
> > > > So if PMD would like to have several process() functions for different
> > > > type of
> > > > sessions
> > > > (let say one per alg) first thing it has to do inside it's process() -
> > > > read session
> > data
> > > > and
> > > > based on that, do a jump/call to particular internal sub-routine.
> > > > Something like:
> > > > driver_id = get_pmd_driver_id();
> > > > priv_ses = ses->sess_data[driver_id];
> > > > Then either:
> > > > switch(priv_sess->alg) {case XXX: process_XXX(priv_sess, ...);break;...}
> > > > OR
> > > > priv_ses->process(priv_sess, ...);
> > > >
> > > > to select and call the proper function.
> > > > Looks like totally unnecessary overhead to me.
> > > > Though if we'll have ability to query/extract some sort session_ops
> > > > based on
> > the
> > > > xform -
> > > > we can avoid this extra de-refererence+jump/call thing.
> > >
> > > What is the issue in the priv_ses->process(); approach?
> >
> > Nothing at all.
> > What I am saying that schema with dev_ops
> > dev[dev_id]->dev_ops.process(ses->priv_ses[driver_id], ...)
> > |
> > |-> priv_ses->process(...)
> >
> > Has bigger overhead then just:
> > process(ses,...);
> >
> > So what for to introduce extra-level of indirection here?
>
> Explained above.
>
> >
> > > I don't understand what are you saving by not doing this.
> > > In any case you would need to identify which session correspond to which
> > process().
> >
> > Yes, sure, but I think we can make user to store information that
> > relationship,
> > in a way he likes: store process() pointer for each session, or group
> > sessions
> > that share the same process() somehow, or...
>
> So whatever relationship that user will make and store will make its life
> complicated.
> If we can hide that information in the driver, then what is the issue in that
> and user
> Will not need to worry. He would just call the process() and driver will
> choose which
> Process need to be called.
Driver can do that at config/init time.
Then at run-time we can avoid that choice at all and call already chosen
function.
>
> I think we should have a POC around this and see the difference in the cycle
> count.
> IMO it would be negligible and we would end up making a generic API set which
> can be used by others as well.
>
> >
> > > For that you would be doing it somewhere in your data path.
> >
> > Why at data-path?
> > Only once at session creation/initialization time.
> > Or might be even once per group of sessions.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not sure if you would need a new session init API for this as
> > > > > nothing
> > would
> > > > be visible to
> > > > > the app or lib.
> > > > >
> > > > > > + * - Not storing process() pointer inside the session -
> > > > > > + * Allows user to choose does he want to store a process()
> > > > > > pointer
> > > > > > + * per session, or per group of sessions for that device that
> > > > > > share
> > > > > > + * the same input xforms. I.E. extra flexibility for the user,
> > > > > > + * plus allows us to keep cpu_sym_session totally opaque, see
> > > > > > above.
> > > > >
> > > > > If multiple sessions need to be processed via the same process
> > > > > function,
> > > > > PMD would save the same process in all the sessions, I don't think
> > > > > there
> > would
> > > > > be any perf overhead with that.
> > > >
> > > > I think it would, see above.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > + * Sketched usage model:
> > > > > > + * ....
> > > > > > + * /* control path, alloc/init session */
> > > > > > + * int32_t sz = rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_size(dev_id, &xform);
> > > > > > + * struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *ses = user_alloc(..., sz);
> > > > > > + * rte_crypto_cpu_sym_process_t process =
> > > > > > + * rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_func(dev_id, &xform);
> > > > > > + * rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_init(dev_id, ses, &xform);
> > > > > > + * ...
> > > > > > + * /* data-path*/
> > > > > > + * process(ses, ....);
> > > > > > + * ....
> > > > > > + * /* control path, termiante/free session */
> > > > > > + * rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_fini(dev_id, ses);
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +/**
> > > > > > + * vector structure, contains pointer to vector array and the
> > > > > > length
> > > > > > + * of the array
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +struct rte_crypto_vec {
> > > > > > + struct iovec *vec;
> > > > > > + uint32_t num;
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > + * Data-path bulk process crypto function.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +typedef void (*rte_crypto_cpu_sym_process_t)(
> > > > > > + struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *sess,
> > > > > > + struct rte_crypto_vec buf[], void *iv[], void
> > > > > > *aad[],
> > > > > > + void *digest[], int status[], uint32_t num);
> > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > + * for given device return process function specific to input
> > > > > > xforms
> > > > > > + * on error - return NULL and set rte_errno value.
> > > > > > + * Note that for same input xfroms for the same device should
> > > > > > return
> > > > > > + * the same process function.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +__rte_experimental
> > > > > > +rte_crypto_cpu_sym_process_t
> > > > > > +rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_func(uint8_t dev_id,
> > > > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xforms);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > + * Return required session size in bytes for given set of xforms.
> > > > > > + * if xforms == NULL, then return the max possible session size,
> > > > > > + * that would fit session for any supported by the device
> > > > > > algorithm.
> > > > > > + * if CPU mode is not supported at all, or requeted in xform
> > > > > > + * algorithm is not supported, then return -ENOTSUP.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +__rte_experimental
> > > > > > +int
> > > > > > +rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_size(uint8_t dev_id,
> > > > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xforms);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > + * Initialize session.
> > > > > > + * It is caller responsibility to allocate enough space for it.
> > > > > > + * See rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_size above.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +__rte_experimental
> > > > > > +int rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_init(uint8_t dev_id,
> > > > > > + struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *sess,
> > > > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xforms);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +__rte_experimental
> > > > > > +void
> > > > > > +rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_fini(uint8_t dev_id,
> > > > > > + struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *sess);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > #ifdef __cplusplus
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > #endif
> > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_pmd.h
> > > > > > b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_pmd.h
> > > > > > index defe05ea0..ed7e63fab 100644
> > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_pmd.h
> > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_pmd.h
> > > > > > @@ -310,6 +310,20 @@ typedef void
> > > > (*cryptodev_sym_free_session_t)(struct
> > > > > > rte_cryptodev *dev,
> > > > > > typedef void (*cryptodev_asym_free_session_t)(struct rte_cryptodev
> > *dev,
> > > > > > struct rte_cryptodev_asym_session *sess);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +typedef int (*cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_size_t) (struct
> > > > > > rte_cryptodev
> > > > *dev,
> > > > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xforms);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +typedef int (*cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_init_t) (struct
> > > > > > rte_cryptodev
> > > > *dev,
> > > > > > + struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *sess,
> > > > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xforms);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +typedef void (*cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_fini_t) (struct
> > > > > > rte_cryptodev
> > > > *dev,
> > > > > > + struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *sess);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +typedef rte_crypto_cpu_sym_process_t
> > > > (*cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_func_t)
> > > > > > (
> > > > > > + struct rte_cryptodev *dev,
> > > > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xforms);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > /** Crypto device operations function pointer table */
> > > > > > struct rte_cryptodev_ops {
> > > > > > cryptodev_configure_t dev_configure; /**< Configure
> > > > > > device. */
> > > > > > @@ -343,6 +357,11 @@ struct rte_cryptodev_ops {
> > > > > > /**< Clear a Crypto sessions private data. */
> > > > > > cryptodev_asym_free_session_t asym_session_clear;
> > > > > > /**< Clear a Crypto sessions private data. */
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_size_t sym_cpu_session_get_size;
> > > > > > + cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_func_t sym_cpu_session_get_func;
> > > > > > + cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_init_t sym_cpu_session_init;
> > > > > > + cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_fini_t sym_cpu_session_fini;
> > > > > > };
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
