Hi Akhil, Radu,
Please see inline.
Thanks,
Anoob
On 11/24/2017 05:33 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
On 11/24/2017 5:29 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
On 11/24/2017 11:34 AM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
Hi Radu,
On 11/24/2017 4:47 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
On 11/24/2017 10:55 AM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
On 11/24/2017 3:09 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
Hi,
Comment inline
On 11/24/2017 8:50 AM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
Hi Anoob, Radu,
On 11/23/2017 4:49 PM, 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, application could get
metadata
from the packet which could be used to identify the security
parameters
with which the packet was processed.
Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.jos...@caviumnetworks.com>
---
v3:
* Replaced 64 bit metadata in conf with (void *)userdata
* The API(rte_security_get_pkt_metadata) would return void *
instead of
uint64_t
v2:
* Replaced get_session and get_cookie APIs with
get_pkt_metadata API
lib/librte_security/rte_security.c | 13 +++++++++++++
lib/librte_security/rte_security.h | 19
+++++++++++++++++++
lib/librte_security/rte_security_driver.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 48 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
index 1227fca..a1d78b6 100644
--- a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
+++ b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
@@ -108,6 +108,19 @@ rte_security_set_pkt_metadata(struct
rte_security_ctx *instance,
sess, m, params);
}
+void *
+rte_security_get_pkt_metadata(struct rte_security_ctx *instance,
+ struct rte_mbuf *pkt)
Can we rename pkt with m. Just to make it consistent with the
set API.
+{
+ void *md = NULL;
+
+ RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*instance->ops->get_pkt_metadata, NULL);
+ if (instance->ops->get_pkt_metadata(instance->device, pkt,
&md))
+ return NULL;
+
+ return md;
+}
Pkt metadata should be set by user i.e. the application, and the
driver need not be aware of the format and the values of the
metadata.
So setting the metadata in the driver and getting it back from
the driver does not look a good idea.
Is it possible, that the application define the metadata on its
own and set it in the library itself without the call to the
driver ops.
I'm not sure I understand here; even in our case (ixgbe) the
driver sets the metadata and it is aware of the format - that is
the whole idea. This is why we added the set_metadata API, to
allow the driver to inject extra information into the mbuf,
information that is driver specific and derived from the security
session, so it makes sense to also have a symmetric get_metadata.
Private data is the one that follows those rules, i.e.
application specific and driver transparent.
As per my understanding of the user metadata, it should be in
control of the application, and the application shall know the
format of that. Setting in driver will disallow this.
Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect.
If at all, some information is needed to be set on the basis of
driver, then application can get that information from the driver
and then set it in the packet metadata in its own way/format.
The rte_security_set_pkt_metadata() doc defines the metadata as
"device-specific defined metadata" and also takes a device specific
params pointer, so the symmetric function is to be expected to work
in the same way, i.e. return device specific metadata associated
with the security session and instance and mbuf. How is this
metadata stored is not specified in the security API, so the PMD
implementation have the flexibility.
Is rte_security_get_pkt_metadata() expected to return a "device
specific" pointer? If that's the case, we would need another call
(something like, rte_security_get_userdata()) to get back the userdata,
right? Or is it fine, if the application assumes it will get userdata
(the one passed in conf while creating security session) with
rte_security_get_pkt_metadata()?
Yes it was defined that way and I did not noticed this one at the
time of it's implementation.
Here, my point is that the application may be using mbuf udata for
it's own functionality, it should not be modified in the driver.
However, if we need to do this, then we may need to clarify in the
documentation that for security, udata shall be set with the
rte_security_set_pkt_metadata() and not otherwise.
Indeed, we should update the doc stating that the set_metadata may
change the mbuf userdata field so the application should use only
private data if needed.
Agreed, but it is dependent on which driver/mode(inline or lookaside),
it will be used.
Lookaside may not need this API as of now. Other implementations may
also don't require. So this shall be documented that way.
-Akhil
