Hi Konstantin,
Please see inline.
Thanks,
Anoob
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 4:36 PM
> To: Anoob Joseph <ano...@marvell.com>; Akhil Goyal <akhil.go...@nxp.com>;
> Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com>; Doherty, Declan
> <declan.dohe...@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>; Jerin
> Jacob
> Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <tho...@monjalon.net>
> Cc: Ankur Dwivedi <adwiv...@marvell.com>; Hemant Agrawal
> <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com>; Nicolau,
> Radu <radu.nico...@intel.com>; Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>;
> Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya <pathr...@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: allow multiple security sessions to
> use
> one rte flow
>
>
> > > >
> > > > The rte_security API which enables inline protocol/crypto feature
> > > > mandates that for every security session an rte_flow is created.
> > > > This would internally translate to a rule in the hardware which
> > > > would do packet classification.
> > > >
> > > > In rte_securty, one SA would be one security session. And if an
> > > > rte_flow need to be created for every session, the number of SAs
> > > > supported by an inline implementation would be limited by the
> > > > number of rte_flows the PMD would be able to support.
> > > >
> > > > If the fields SPI & IP addresses are allowed to be a range, then
> > > > this limitation can be overcome. Multiple flows will be able to
> > > > use one rule for SECURITY processing. In this case, the security
> > > > session provided as conf would be NULL.
> > >
> > > Wonder what will be the usage model for it?
> > > AFAIK, RFC 4301 clearly states that either SPI value alone or in
> > > conjunction with dst (and src) IP should clearly identify SA for inbound
> > > SAD
> lookup.
> > > Am I missing something obvious here?
> >
> > [Anoob] Existing SECURITY action type requires application to create
> > an 'rte_flow' per SA, which is not really required if h/w can use SPI to
> > uniquely
> identify the security session/SA.
> >
> > Existing rte_flow usage: IP (dst,src) + ESP + SPI -> security
> > processing enabled on one security session (ie on SA)
> >
> > The above rule would uniquely identify packets for an SA. But with the
> > above usage, we would quickly exhaust entries available in h/w lookup
> > tables (which are limited on our hardware). But if h/w can use SPI field to
> > index
> into a table (for example), then the above requirement of one rte_flow per SA
> is
> not required.
> >
> > Proposed rte_flow usage: IP (any) + ESP + SPI (any) -> security
> > processing enabled on all ESP packets
> >
> > Now h/w could use SPI to index into a pre-populated table to get
> > security session. Please do note that, SPI is not ignored during the actual
> lookup. Just that it is not used while creating 'rte_flow'.
>
> And this table will be prepopulated by user and pointer to it will be somehow
> passed via rte_flow API?
> If yes, then what would be the mechanism?
[Anoob] I'm not sure what exactly you meant by user. But may be I'll explain
how it's done in OCTEONTX2 PMD.
The application would create security_session for every SA. SPI etc would be
available to PMD (in conf) when the session is created. Now the PMD would
populate SA related params in a specific location that h/w would access. This
memory is allocated during device configure and h/w would have the pointer
after the initialization is done.
PMD uses SPI as index to write into specific locations(during session create)
and h/w would use it when it sees an ESP packet eligible for SECURITY (in
receive path, per packet). As long as session creation could populate at memory
locations that h/w would look at, this scheme would work.
>
> >
> > The usage of one 'rte_flow' for multiple SAs is not mandatory. It is
> > only required when application requires large number of SAs. The proposed
> change is to allow more efficient usage of h/w resources where it's permitted
> by
> the PMD.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Application should do an rte_flow_validate() to make sure the flow
> > > > is supported on the PMD.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <ano...@marvell.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h | 6 ++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > > > b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h index 452d359..21fa7ed 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > > > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > > > @@ -2239,6 +2239,12 @@ struct rte_flow_action_meter {
> > > > * direction.
> > > > *
> > > > * Multiple flows can be configured to use the same security session.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * The NULL value is allowed for security session. If security
> > > > + session is NULL,
> > > > + * then SPI field in ESP flow item and IP addresses in flow items
> > > > + 'IPv4' and
> > > > + * 'IPv6' will be allowed to be a range. The rule thus created
> > > > + can enable
> > > > + * SECURITY processing on multiple flows.
> > > > + *
> > > > */
> > > > struct rte_flow_action_security {
> > > > void *security_session; /**< Pointer to security session
> > > > structure.
> > > > */
> > > > --
> > > > 2.7.4
