> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 1:17 PM
> To: Nicolau, Radu <[email protected]>; Akhil Goyal
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Cc: Doherty, Declan <[email protected]>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected];
> Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 10/12] net/ixgbe: enable inline ipsec
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nicolau, Radu
> > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 12:57 PM
> > To: Ananyev, Konstantin <[email protected]>; Akhil Goyal
> > <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> > Cc: Doherty, Declan <[email protected]>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> > <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> > [email protected]; [email protected];
> > Mcnamara, John <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> > [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 10/12] net/ixgbe: enable inline ipsec
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 12:04 PM
> > > To: Nicolau, Radu <[email protected]>; Akhil Goyal
> > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> > > Cc: Doherty, Declan <[email protected]>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> > > <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> > > [email protected]; [email protected]; Mcnamara,
> > > John <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> > > [email protected]
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 10/12] net/ixgbe: enable inline ipsec
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> <snip>
> > > > >> +
> > > > >> +static int
> > > > >> +ixgbe_crypto_update_mb(void *device __rte_unused,
> > > > >> + struct rte_security_session *session,
> > > > >> + struct rte_mbuf *m, void *params __rte_unused) {
Another sort of generic question - why not make security_set_pkt_metadata
function
to accept bulk of packets?
In that case o can minimize the cost of function calls, accessing session data,
etc.
Though I suppose that could wait till next patch series.
Konstantin
> > > > >> + struct ixgbe_crypto_session *ic_session =
> > > > >> + get_sec_session_private_data(session);
> > > > >> + if (ic_session->op == IXGBE_OP_AUTHENTICATED_ENCRYPTION) {
> > > > >> + struct ixgbe_crypto_tx_desc_md *mdata =
> > > > >> + (struct ixgbe_crypto_tx_desc_md *)&m->udata64;
> > > > >> + mdata->enc = 1;
> > > > >> + mdata->sa_idx = ic_session->sa_index;
> > > > >> + mdata->pad_len = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(m,
> > > > >> + uint8_t *, rte_pktmbuf_pkt_len(m) - 18) + 18;
> > > > > Could you explain what pad_len supposed to contain?
> > > > > Also what is a magical constant '18'?
> > > > > Could you create some macro if needed?
> > > > I added an explanation in the code, we read the payload padding size
> > > > that is stored at the len-18 bytes and add 18 bytes, 2 for ESP trailer
> > > > and 16 for ICV.
> > >
> > > Ok, can we at least have a macros for all these constants?
> > > Another question: you do use pkt_len() here - does it mean that multi-
> > > segment packets are not supported by ixgbe-ipsec?
> > > Konstantin
> > It does support multisegment, but the pad_len has to be set only for single
> > send, it will be ignored otherwise. I have updated the code to
> set
> > it for single segment packets only.
>
> Sorry, I didn't understand that.
> If that function does support multiseg packets, then it has to go to the last
> segment via m->next,
> If it doesn't, then it should return an error I case of m->nb_seg != 1.
> Right?
>
> > Also, our test app does not support multisegment packets.
>
> Ok, I suppose that means, multi-seg case wasn't tested :)
>
>
>
