On 9/5/2021 3:47 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
Hi Radu,---------------------------------------------------------------------- Update ipsec_xform definition to include ESN field. Signed-off-by: Declan Doherty <declan.dohe...@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Radu Nicolau <radu.nico...@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Abhijit Sinha <abhijit.si...@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Daniel Martin Buckley <daniel.m.buck...@intel.com> --- lib/security/rte_security.h | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/lib/security/rte_security.h b/lib/security/rte_security.h index 03572b10ab..702de58b48 100644 --- a/lib/security/rte_security.h +++ b/lib/security/rte_security.h @@ -240,6 +240,14 @@ struct rte_security_ipsec_xform { */ uint32_t mss; /**< IPsec payload Maximum Segment Size */ + union { + uint64_t value; + struct { + uint32_t low; + uint32_t hi; + }; + } esn; + /**< Extended Sequence Number */ };Can we use the following change for monitoring ESN? http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/1629207767-262-2-git-send-email-ano...@marvell.com/ I believe ESN is not required to be set as SA parameter, it is normally maintained by the PMD and application should be notified if a limit is reached. Regards, Akhil
Hi Akhil, I suppose they can be complementary, with this one being a hard ESN limit that the user can enforce by setting the initial ESN value - but there is no requirement to do so. Also, this change doesn't need explicit support added in the PMDs.
