Hi Anoob,
On 12/11/2017 12:51 PM, Anoob wrote:
Hi Akhil,
Can you confirm if you are fine with the approach explained inline.
Thanks,
Anoob
On 12/06/2017 03:13 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
Hi,
On 12/6/2017 7:30 AM, Anoob wrote:
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, this will be my assumption, a "device specific" pointer (similar
to the "void *params" parameter of the rte_security_set_pkt_metadata
function), which will contain an arbitrary defined structure that will
be decoded by calling a PMD defined function.
But I think Akhil has a different view on this.
I am ok with the approach, if we are adding this as a limitation of
using udata in the documentation for inline cases.
The ideal approach should be such that driver should not be knowing the
content of the udata. But, if we cannot do away with it, we can mention
it in the documentation.
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
