> Add support for specifying UDP port params for UDP encapsulation option.
> RFC3948 section-2.1 does not enforce using specific the UDP ports for
> UDP-Encapsulated ESP Header
>
> 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>
> Acked-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zh...@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 495a228915..84ba1b08f8 100644
> --- a/lib/security/rte_security.h
> +++ b/lib/security/rte_security.h
> @@ -112,6 +112,12 @@ struct rte_security_ipsec_tunnel_param {
> };
> };
>
> +struct rte_security_ipsec_udp_param {
> +
> + uint16_t sport;
> + uint16_t dport;
> +};
Would it be worth to have ability to access 32-bits at once.
Something like:
union rte_security_ipsec_udp_param {
uint32_t raw;
struct {
uint16_t sport, dport;
};
};
?
> +
> /**
> * IPsec Security Association option flags
> */
> @@ -224,6 +230,8 @@ struct rte_security_ipsec_xform {
> /**< IPsec SA Mode - transport/tunnel */
> struct rte_security_ipsec_tunnel_param tunnel;
> /**< Tunnel parameters, NULL for transport mode */
> + struct rte_security_ipsec_udp_param udp;
> + /**< UDP parameters, ignored when udp_encap option not specified */
Any reason to insert it into the middle of the xform struct?
Why not to the end?
> uint64_t esn_soft_limit;
> /**< ESN for which the overflow event need to be raised */
> uint32_t replay_win_sz;
> --
> 2.25.1
