Hi Abhinandan,
On 1/16/2018 5:06 PM, Gujjar, Abhinandan S wrote:
Hi Akhil,
-----Original Message-----
From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.go...@nxp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 2:52 PM
To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>; Doherty, Declan
<declan.dohe...@intel.com>; Jacob, Jerin
<jerin.jacobkollanukka...@cavium.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vang...@intel.com>; Rao,
Nikhil <nikhil....@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session private data
On 1/16/2018 2:33 PM, Gujjar, Abhinandan S wrote:
Hi Akhil,
-----Original Message-----
From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.go...@nxp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 12:56 PM
To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>; Doherty,
Declan <declan.dohe...@intel.com>; Jacob, Jerin
<jerin.jacobkollanukka...@cavium.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vang...@intel.com>;
Rao, Nikhil <nikhil....@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session
private data
Hi Abhinandan,
On 1/16/2018 12:35 PM, Gujjar, Abhinandan S wrote:
Hi Akhil,
-----Original Message-----
From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.go...@nxp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 11:55 AM
To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.guj...@intel.com>; Doherty,
Declan <declan.dohe...@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vang...@intel.com>;
Rao, Nikhil <nikhil....@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session
private data
Hi Abhinandan,
On 1/16/2018 11:39 AM, Gujjar, Abhinandan S wrote:
diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto.h
b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto.h
index bbc510d..3a98cbf 100644
--- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto.h
+++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto.h
@@ -62,6 +62,18 @@ enum rte_crypto_op_sess_type {
RTE_CRYPTO_OP_SECURITY_SESSION /**< Security session
crypto
operation */
};
+/** Private data types for cryptographic operation
+ * @see rte_crypto_op::private_data_type */ enum
+rte_crypto_op_private_data_type {
+ RTE_CRYPTO_OP_PRIVATE_DATA_NONE,
+ /**< No private data */
+ RTE_CRYPTO_OP_PRIVATE_DATA_OP,
+ /**< Private data is part of rte_crypto_op and indicated by
+ * private_data_offset */
+ RTE_CRYPTO_OP_PRIVATE_DATA_SESSION
+ /**< Private data is available at session */ };
+
We may get away with this enum. If private_data_offset is "0",
then we can check with the session if it has priv data or not.
Right now, Application uses 'rte_crypto_op_private_data_type' to
indicate rte_cryptodev_sym_session_set_private_data()
was called to set the private data. Otherwise, how do you indicate
there is a
private data associated with the session?
Any suggestions?
For session based flows, the first choice to store the private data
should be in the session. So RTE_CRYPTO_OP_WITH_SESSION or
RTE_CRYPTO_OP_SECURITY_SESSION can be used to call
rte_cryptodev_sym_session_set_private_data or
rte_security_session_set_private_data.
Case 1: private_data_offset is "0" and sess_type =
RTE_CRYPTO_OP_WITH_SESSION -> usual case Case 2: private_data_offset
is "0" and sess_type = RTE_CRYPTO_OP_WITH_SESSION + event case
(access private data) Differentiating between case 1 & 2 will be
done by checking
rte_crypto_op_private_data_type ==
RTE_CRYPTO_OP_PRIVATE_DATA_SESSION.
Consider this:
if (sess_type == RTE_CRYPTO_OP_WITH_SESSION &&
rte_cryptodev_sym_session_get_private_data == NULL)
usual case.
else if (sess_type = RTE_CRYPTO_OP_WITH_SESSION &&
rte_cryptodev_sym_session_get_private_data != NULL)
event case.
else if (sess_type == RTE_CRYPTO_OP_SESSIONLESS &&
private_data_offset != 0)
event case for sessionless op.
I hope all cases can be handled in this way.
Memory allocated for private data will be continuation of session memory.
I think, rte_cryptodev_sym_session_get_private_data() will return a valid
pointer.
It could be pointer to private data, in case application has allocated mempool
with session + private data.
It could be again a pointer to a location(may be next session), in case
application has allocated mempool with session only.
Unless, there is a flag in the session data which will be set by
rte_cryptodev_sym_session_set_private_data()
If this flag is not set, rte_cryptodev_sym_session_get_private_data() will
return NULL.
I am not claiming, I have complete knowledge of different usage case of
mempool setup for crypto.
I am wondering, whether I am missing anything here. Please let me know.
It depends on the implementation of the get/set API. We can set NULL, if it is
not filled in the set API. If it is set then we have a valid pointer.
The plan is to store private data after "sess * nb_drivers ".
As you said, if it is implementation specific, flag may be again required at
struct rte_cryptodev_sym_session
I think my previous statement was not clear.
My point is that whatever we set in the
rte_cryptodev_sym_session_set_private_data() is a valid value when we
call this API explicitly. And before calling the set API, the values are
zero or any invalid value. So if application calls the get API before
setting it with set API, it will get an invalid value(may be NULL or
zero or whatever).
OR
If it is planned to store at PMD's sess_private_data, it requires additional ops
as well in rte_cryptodev_ops.
We wanted to have a simple design with minimal changes to cryptodev and
security,
that’s reason for existing design.
It will be good, if other folks chime in and share there opinion.
This will make the implementation part more clear.
-Akhil
-Abhinandan
