>
> Hi Akhil,
>
> >
> > Hi Anoob/Konstantin,
> > > >
> > > > Check that ops->get_userdata is a valid function pointer will be
> > > > compiled
> out.
> > > > So PMDs that don't implement this function will crash in
> > > > rte_security_get_userdata().
> > > > In our particular case - ixgbe.
> > > > Same story with rte_security_set_pkt_metadata() - see the patch.
> > >
> > > [Anoob] But ixgbe doesn't implement inline protocol which is the primary
> > > consumer of this API (rte_security_get_userdata()). So what is the
> > > trouble?
> > >
> > > Also, application is expected to call rte_security_set_pkt_metadata()
> > > only on
> > > devices with offload flag RTE_SECURITY_TX_OLOAD_NEED_MDATA. If a
> PMD
> > > states it needs MDATA but fails to register a function pointer for doing
> > > the
> same,
> > > it is a control path problem. Checking for that in the datapath is an
> > > overkill.
> > >
> > Whatever your concern is, we can resolve it later, but for now we should
> > have
> the same
> > Unconditional checks that were there earlier. We need to make RC1
> today/tomorrow.
> > And this cannot go as an issue.
> >
> > These are optional APIs and every PMD may not have supported that.
> >
> > Konstantin,
> > Please send an update to your patch reverting the original patch for these 2
> functions.
> > Currently it is adding 2 extra checks.
> >
>
> I am afraid we can't do just that.
> As in that case /app/test/test_security.c build wih -DRE_DEBUG will start
> crashing.
>
> I think we have 3 alternative how to fix it:
>
> 1. Keep all these 3 checks for debug and non-debug mode (that what my current
> patch does).
> 2. Have both: existed 1 check in non-debug mode, plus new checks in debug
> mode, i.e.:
> rte_security_get_userdata(struct rte_security_ctx *instance, uint64_t md)
> {
> void *userdata = NULL;
>
> +#ifdef RTE_DEBUG
> + RTE_PTR_CHAIN3_OR_ERR_RET(instance, ops, get_userdata, NULL,
> NULL);
> +#else
> RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*instance->ops->get_userdata, NULL);
> +#endif
>
> ....
>
> 3. Keep only 1 existed check in non-debug mode and remove cases in
> app/test/test_security.c
> that would crash with -DRTE_DEBUG.
>
> My preference is 1), I don't think these 2 extra checks will affect
> performance
> greatly.
> Also with 1) we can make these new test-case to be executed for non-debug
> mode too.
> 2) is probably also ok - but I think RTE_DEBUG concept should be a separate
> patch series,
> and I don't want to mix things.
> What is your opinion here?
>
I am OK with both 1 and 2.
Anoob may be concerned about the performance.
But if we go with 2, it would be better to have
rte_security_get_userdata(struct rte_security_ctx *instance, uint64_t md)
{
void *userdata = NULL;
+#ifdef RTE_DEBUG
+ RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance, NULL);
+ RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops, NULL);
+#endif
RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*instance->ops->get_userdata, NULL);
....
}
And for security test, we can have a separate patch. Lukasz or you can send
that later if not now.
