Hi Ciara, Thanks for the review. Please see inline.
Thanks, Anoob > -----Original Message----- > From: Power, Ciara <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 3:09 PM > To: Anoob Joseph <[email protected]>; Akhil Goyal > <[email protected]>; Doherty, Declan <[email protected]>; > Zhang, Roy Fan <[email protected]>; Ananyev, Konstantin > <[email protected]> > Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <[email protected]>; Archana Muniganti > <[email protected]>; Tejasree Kondoj <[email protected]>; > Hemant Agrawal <[email protected]>; Nicolau, Radu > <[email protected]>; Gagandeep Singh <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: [EXT] RE: [PATCH v3 1/5] test/crypto: add lookaside IPsec tests > > External Email > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Anoob, > > Left some comments/questions inline. > > Thanks, > Ciara > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Anoob Joseph <[email protected]> > >Sent: Friday 3 September 2021 05:47 > >To: Akhil Goyal <[email protected]>; Doherty, Declan > ><[email protected]>; Zhang, Roy Fan <[email protected]>; > >Ananyev, Konstantin <[email protected]> > >Cc: Anoob Joseph <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob > ><[email protected]>; Archana Muniganti <[email protected]>; > >Tejasree Kondoj <[email protected]>; Hemant Agrawal > ><[email protected]>; Nicolau, Radu <[email protected]>; > >Power, Ciara <[email protected]>; Gagandeep Singh > ><[email protected]>; [email protected] > >Subject: [PATCH v3 1/5] test/crypto: add lookaside IPsec tests > > > >Added test case for lookaside IPsec. Inbound known vector tests are > added. > > > >Cipher list: AES-GCM 128, 192 & 256 > > > >Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <[email protected]> > >Signed-off-by: Tejasree Kondoj <[email protected]> > >--- > <snip> > > > #ifdef RTE_LIB_SECURITY > > static int > >+ipsec_proto_testsuite_setup(void) > >+{ > >+ struct crypto_testsuite_params *ts_params = &testsuite_params; > >+ struct crypto_unittest_params *ut_params = &unittest_params; > >+ struct rte_cryptodev_info dev_info; > >+ > >+ rte_cryptodev_info_get(ts_params->valid_devs[0], &dev_info); > >+ > >+ if (!(dev_info.feature_flags & RTE_CRYPTODEV_FF_SECURITY)) { > >+ RTE_LOG(INFO, USER1, "Feature flag requirements for IPsec > >Proto " > >+ "testsuite not met\n"); > >+ return TEST_SKIPPED; > >+ } > >+ > >+ /* Reconfigure to enable security */ > >+ > dev_configure_and_start(RTE_CRYPTODEV_FF_SYMMETRIC_CRYPT > O | > >+ > RTE_CRYPTODEV_FF_ASYMMETRIC_CRYPTO); > >+ > > Just a question on this - each testcase uses ut_setup_security which in turn > calls dev_configure_and_start, Is the configuration resulting from this call > just being redone when the first testcase runs? [Anoob] The tests prior to this test suite can have SECURITY disabled (which is the case currently). And in that case, rte_security_capabalities_get() would be returning a NULL (since the device won't be having SECURITY feature enabled). I was addressing this aspect by reconfiguring with SECURITY enabled. > > >+ /* Set action type */ > >+ ut_params->type = > >RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_LOOKASIDE_PROTOCOL; > >+ > >+ if (security_proto_supported( > >+ > RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_LOOKASIDE_PROTOCOL, > >+ RTE_SECURITY_PROTOCOL_IPSEC) < 0) { > >+ RTE_LOG(INFO, USER1, "Capability requirements for IPsec > Proto > >" > >+ "test not met\n"); > >+ return TEST_SKIPPED; > > If the test is skipped here, the device is not stopped, which I believe would > cause problems for the next testsuite setup configuring the device. [Anoob] Missed this. Thanks for pointing out. > > >+ } > >+ > >+ /* Stop the device */ > >+ rte_cryptodev_stop(ts_params->valid_devs[0]); > >+ > >+ return 0; > >+} >
