> Hello Akhil,
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 11:14 PM Akhil Goyal <gak...@marvell.com> wrote:
> >
> > A new option is added in IPsec to enable and attempt reassembly
> > of inbound packets.
>
> First, about extending this structure.
>
> Copying the header:
>
> /** Reserved bit fields for future extension
> *
> * User should ensure reserved_opts is cleared as it may change in
> * subsequent releases to support new options.
> *
> * Note: Reduce number of bits in reserved_opts for every new option.
> */
> uint32_t reserved_opts : 18;
>
> I did not follow the introduction of the reserved_opts field, but
> writing this comment in the API only is weak.
> Why can't the rte_security API enforce reserved_opts == 0 (like in
> rte_security_session_create)?
>
This was discussed here.
http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/20211008204516.3497060-3-gak...@marvell.com/
rte_security_ipsec_sa_options is being used at multiple places as listed below
in abiignore.
Checking a particular field in each of the API does not make sense to me.
>
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal <gak...@marvell.com>
> > Change-Id: I6f66f0b5a659550976a32629130594070cb16cb1
> ^^^
> Internal tag, please remove.
>
Yes, missed that will remove.
>
> > ---
> > devtools/libabigail.abignore | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > lib/security/rte_security.h | 12 +++++++++++-
> > 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/devtools/libabigail.abignore b/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > index 4b676f317d..3bd39042e8 100644
> > --- a/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > +++ b/devtools/libabigail.abignore
> > @@ -11,3 +11,17 @@
> > ; Ignore generated PMD information strings
> > [suppress_variable]
> > name_regexp = _pmd_info$
> > +
> > +; Ignore fields inserted in place of reserved_opts of
> rte_security_ipsec_sa_options
> > +[suppress_type]
> > + name = rte_ipsec_sa_prm
> > + name = rte_security_ipsec_sa_options
> > + has_data_member_inserted_between = {offset_of(reserved_opts), end}
> > +
> > +[suppress_type]
> > + name = rte_security_capability
> > + has_data_member_inserted_between = {offset_of(reserved_opts),
> (offset_of(reserved_opts) + 18)}
> > +
> > +[suppress_type]
> > + name = rte_security_session_conf
> > + has_data_member_inserted_between = {offset_of(reserved_opts),
> (offset_of(reserved_opts) + 18)}
>
> Now, about the suppression rule, I don't understand the intention of
> those 3 rules.
>
> I would simply suppress modifications (after reserved_opts) to the
> rte_security_ipsec_sa_options struct.
> Like:
>
> ; Ignore fields inserted in place of reserved_opts of
> rte_security_ipsec_sa_options
> [suppress_type]
> name = rte_security_ipsec_sa_options
> has_data_member_inserted_between = {offset_of(reserved_opts), end}
>
I tried this in the first place but abi check was complaining in other
structures which included
rte_security_ipsec_sa_options. So I had to add suppression for those as well.
Can you try at your end?
