On 9/23/2021 1:43 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
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; }; }; ?
TBH I don't see any reason to access them as a 32b value...
I can't see any good reason I guess it just looked better, I will move it at the end.+ /** * 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?
