On 11/20/2017 7:09 PM, Anoob Joseph wrote:
Hi
See inline.
On 20-11-2017 23:19, Radu Nicolau wrote:
Hi
On 11/20/2017 3:32 PM, Anoob wrote:
Hi,
Having something like "get_pkt_metadata" should be fine for inline
protocol usage. But we will still need a "get cookie" call to get
the cookie, as the application would need something it can interpret.
Why can't you have a get_pkt_metadata that returns the "cookie" -
which I would call it userdata or similar? What I'm trying to say is
that we should try to keep it as generic as possible. For example, I
wouldn't assume that the cookie is stored in pkt->udata64 in the
application.
I agree to your suggestion. The only problem is in the asymmetry of
how we would set the "cookie" (or userdata) and get it back. Right now
we are passing this as a member in conf. Do you have any thoughts on
that? For a more meaningful approach, we could pass this as another
argument in create_session API. I was thinking of a scenario of
supporting more items. So added it in the structure.
Naming is open for suggestions. I'll use userdata instead.
I think keeping it in the conf is best, but it can be either way.
And, even though it seems both are symmetric operations(get & set
pkt metadata), there are some minor differences in what they would
do. Set metadata would be setting metadata(udata64 member) in mbuf,
while get metadata is not exactly returning metadata. We use the
actual metadata to get something else(security session in the
proposed patch). That was the primary motive for adding
"session_get" API.
What they do exactly is left to the PMD implementation. From the
user's perspective, it does not matter.
There is no requirement that set pkt metadata will set the udata64
member.
May be I misunderstood the terminology. "udata64" in mbuf was
documented as
|RTE_STD_C11 union { void *userdata; /**< Can be used for external
metadata */ uint64_t udata64; /**< Allow 8-byte userdata on 32-bit */ };|
I thought the metadata in set_pkt_metadata was coming from this. And
we were setting this member itself in ixgbe driver.
We're using it in the ixgbe because it is the most obvious choice when
there is only a small data set to be passed (an table index in this
case) but it was intended to allow the driver to implement any behavior
necessary.
But yes, it makes sense not to expose it that way. The API can take
mbuf pointer and then, the PMD could dictate how it had set the
metadata in rx path.
Thanks,
Anoob
On 11/20/2017 05:42 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
Hi,
Why not have something similar to rte_security_set_pkt_metadata,
for example:
void *
rte_security_get_pkt_metadata(struct rte_security_ctx *instance,
struct rte_mbuf *mb);
and keep internally in the PMD all the required references. The
returned value will be device-specific, so it's flexible enough to
include anything required (just as void *params is in the
set_pkt_metadata).
I think it will make a cleaner and more consistent implementation.
Regards,
Radu
On 11/20/2017 10:31 AM, Anoob Joseph wrote:
In case of inline protocol processed ingress traffic, the packet
may not
have enough information to determine the security parameters with
which
the packet was processed. In such cases, the application could
register
a cookie, which will be saved in the the security session.
As the ingress packets are received in the application, it will have
some metadata set in the mbuf. Application can pass this metadata to
"rte_security_session_get" API to retrieve the security session. Once
the security session is determined, another driver call with the
security session will give the application the cookie it had
registered.
The cookie will be registered while creating the security session.
Without the cookie, the selector check (SP-SA check) for the incoming
IPsec traffic won't be possible in the application.
Application can choose what it should register as the cookie. It can
register SPI or a pointer to SA.
Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.jos...@caviumnetworks.com>
---
lib/librte_security/rte_security.c | 26
+++++++++++++++++++++++
lib/librte_security/rte_security.h | 30
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
lib/librte_security/rte_security_driver.h | 34
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 90 insertions(+)
<snip>
I'll rework the patch to include your suggestions. I'll send a v2
after doing this.
Thanks for the feedback,
Anoob
