Hi Akhil, > -----Original Message----- > From: Akhil Goyal <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 11:05 AM > To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; Doherty, Declan <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Zhang, Roy Fan > <[email protected]>; Trahe, Fiona <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Gagandeep Singh > <[email protected]>; Hemant Agrawal <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Dybkowski, AdamX <[email protected]>; > Apeksha Gupta <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/9] cryptodev: add feature flag for non-byte aligned > data > > Hi Pablo, > > > > Hi Akhil, > > > > > > > > Some wireless algos like SNOW, ZUC may support input data in bits > > > which are not byte aligned. However, not all PMDs can support this > > > requirement. Hence added a new feature flag > > > RTE_CRYPTODEV_FF_NON_BYTE_ALIGNED_DATA > > > to identify which all PMDs can support non-byte aligned data. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal <[email protected]> > > > Acked-by: Fiona Trahe <[email protected]> > > > > On these PMDs, some of these algorithms do not support non byte aligned > data. > > For instance, for ZUC, the cipher algorithm doesn't support length in > > bits, but the authentication algorithm does. > > All test pass because in the tests we are doing encryption in bytes > > and then we mask off the bits not used. > > Wonder if we need two different flags for this, one for cipher and > > another one for authentication. > > Maybe again this is not enough, since we should have a flag per > > algorithm... and starting with this flag is a step forward. > > What do you think? > IMO, supporting non-byte-aligned data is a feature as a whole, but we should > not have Per algo basis. It will be better if we come up with something in the > capability as we do For validating the key sizes etc.
So in this case, it would be something per algo basis. > We should only have a single flag in feature flag list. Or none if we have a > solution which Is generic in capability. > > What do you say? > > However for now I am applying this series as this is the solution that we have > right now. > We can fix the ZUC issue in probably next release cycle. > Agree to leave this for later releases, fixes the problem for now. > Regards, > Akhil > >
