Hi,
From: Akhil Goyal <gak...@marvell.com>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 9:36 AM
To: Kusztal, ArkadiuszX <arkadiuszx.kusz...@intel.com>; Anoob Joseph
<ano...@marvell.com>; Zhang, Roy Fan <roy.fan.zh...@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ramkumar Balu <rb...@marvell.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC] Cryptodev: use rte_crypto_vec, group big-endian constraints
Hi,
since DPDK 21.11 is out, we should start discussion to make asymmetric API
stable.
- Struct rte_crypto_vec vs struct rte_crypto_param_t
We have two almost identical functionally structs, one in _sym.h another in
asym.h so we probably should pick one of them.
“rte_crypto_vec” additionally contains total length which will be useful
information as PMD will overwrite “len” in many cases.
Unfortunately as “rte_crypto.h” includes “_sym.h” and “_asym.h” not other way
around we cannot move it to “rte_crypto.h” but asymmetric will include
symmetric anyway so it probably will not be that big of an issue.
[Akhil ] +1
[Fan] +1
- Network byte order
rte_crypto_param dP; /**<
/**< dP - Private CRT component
* Private CRT component of RSA parameter required for CRT method
* RSA private key operations in Octet-string network byte order
* format.
* dP = d mod ( p - 1 )
*/
We have plenty of these (sometimes in places where should not be, and not in
places where should). Every member that contains this comment here is a big
integer in big-endian format.
We could simplify it to:
/** Big integer in big-endian format */
typedef struct rte_crypto_vec rte_crypto_bigint;
rte_crypto_bigint dP; /**< d mod ( p - 1 ) */
ED related algorithms like (EDDSA) will use little-endian bit integers so it
will have to use different approach.
[Akhil] Using different approaches for endianness may not be a good idea. Why
can’t we use rte_crypto_vec for LE? It has a void * data. Right?
[Fan] Akhil, do you believe a comment before the param is enough?
