On 08/10/2021 21:45, Akhil Goyal wrote:
> Remove *_LIST_END enumerators from asymmetric crypto
> lib to avoid ABI breakage for every new addition in
> enums.
>
> Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal <gak...@marvell.com>
> ---
> v2: no change
>
> app/test/test_cryptodev_asym.c | 4 ++--
> drivers/crypto/qat/qat_asym.c | 2 +-
> lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h | 4 ----
> 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test/test_cryptodev_asym.c b/app/test/test_cryptodev_asym.c
> index 9d19a6d6d9..603b2e4609 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_cryptodev_asym.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_cryptodev_asym.c
> @@ -541,7 +541,7 @@ test_one_case(const void *test_case, int sessionless)
> printf(" %u) TestCase %s %s\n", test_index++,
> tc.modex.description, test_msg);
> } else {
> - for (i = 0; i < RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_LIST_END; i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i <= RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_SHARED_SECRET_COMPUTE; i++)
> {
> if (tc.modex.xform_type == RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_RSA) {
> if (tc.rsa_data.op_type_flags & (1 << i)) {
> if (tc.rsa_data.key_exp) {
> @@ -1027,7 +1027,7 @@ static inline void print_asym_capa(
> rte_crypto_asym_xform_strings[capa->xform_type]);
> printf("operation supported -");
>
> - for (i = 0; i < RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_LIST_END; i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i <= RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_SHARED_SECRET_COMPUTE; i++) {
> /* check supported operations */
> if (rte_cryptodev_asym_xform_capability_check_optype(capa, i))
> printf(" %s",
> diff --git a/drivers/crypto/qat/qat_asym.c b/drivers/crypto/qat/qat_asym.c
> index 85973812a8..026625a4d2 100644
> --- a/drivers/crypto/qat/qat_asym.c
> +++ b/drivers/crypto/qat/qat_asym.c
> @@ -742,7 +742,7 @@ qat_asym_session_configure(struct rte_cryptodev *dev,
> err = -EINVAL;
> goto error;
> }
> - } else if (xform->xform_type >= RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_TYPE_LIST_END
> + } else if (xform->xform_type > RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_ECPM
> || xform->xform_type <= RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_NONE) {
> QAT_LOG(ERR, "Invalid asymmetric crypto xform");
> err = -EINVAL;
> diff --git a/lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h b/lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h
> index 9c866f553f..5edf658572 100644
> --- a/lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h
> +++ b/lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h
> @@ -94,8 +94,6 @@ enum rte_crypto_asym_xform_type {
> */
> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_ECPM,
> /**< Elliptic Curve Point Multiplication */
> - RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_TYPE_LIST_END
> - /**< End of list */
> };
>
> /**
> @@ -116,7 +114,6 @@ enum rte_crypto_asym_op_type {
> /**< DH Public Key generation operation */
> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_SHARED_SECRET_COMPUTE,
> /**< DH Shared Secret compute operation */
> - RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_LIST_END
> };
>
> /**
> @@ -133,7 +130,6 @@ enum rte_crypto_rsa_padding_type {
> /**< RSA PKCS#1 OAEP padding scheme */
> RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PADDING_PSS,
> /**< RSA PKCS#1 PSS padding scheme */
> - RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PADDING_TYPE_LIST_END
> };
>
> /**
So I am not sure that this is an improvement.
The cryptodev issue we had, was that _LIST_END was being used to size arrays.
And that broke when new algorithms got added. Is that an issue, in this case?
I am not sure that swapping out _LIST_END, and then littering the code with
RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_ECPM and RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_SHARED_SECRET_COMPUTE, is an
improvement here.
My 2c is that from an ABI PoV RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_LIST_END is not better or
worse,
than RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_SHARED_SECRET_COMPUTE?
Interested to hear other thoughts.
