> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] > 04/08/2017 07:26, Hemant Agrawal: > > On 8/3/2017 9:02 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote: > > > Support for security operations is planned to be added in ethdev and > > > cryptodev for the 17.11 release. > > > > > > For this following changes are required. > > > - rte_cryptodev and rte_eth_dev structures need to be added new > > > parameter rte_security_ops which extend support for security ops to > > > the corresponding driver. > > > - rte_cryptodev_info and rte_ethd_dev_info need to be added with > > > rte_security_capabilities to identify the capabilities of the > > > corresponding driver. > > It is not explained what is the fundamental difference between rte_security > and rte_crypto? > It looks to be just a technical workaround.
rte_security is a layer between crypto and NIC. Today crypto sessions are created exclusively against crypto devices, but they don't use network related fields, while the network namespace doesn't use crypto related fields. We expect this API to represent crypto sessions that combine network fields and allow to add/delete them for all devices. For NICs we will use rte_flow with rte_security for inline/full crypto protocol offload such as ESP. > > Why the ABI would be changed by rte_security additions? > > > > Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.go...@nxp.com> > > > > > Acked-by: Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com> > > No more opinions outside of NXP? > It seems there is not yet a consensus on how to manage IPsec offloading. > I heard there were some phone calls about these stuff but nothing clear > appears publicly on the mailing list. > Looks to be a community failure. We agreed to go ahead with this approach on one such phone call. I hope we could use the dpdk github for development. Acked-by: Boris Pismenny <bor...@mellanox.com>
