Hi Abhinandan, > -----Original Message----- > From: Gujjar, Abhinandan S > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 3:38 PM > To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <[email protected]>; Doherty, > Declan <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; Vangati, Narender <[email protected]>; Rao, > Nikhil <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [RFC v2, 1/2] cryptodev: add support to set session private > data > > Hi Pablo & Declan, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: De Lara Guarch, Pablo > > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 1:17 AM > > To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <[email protected]>; Doherty, > > Declan <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > > [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; Vangati, Narender <[email protected]>; > Rao, > > Nikhil <[email protected]> > > Subject: RE: [RFC v2, 1/2] cryptodev: add support to set session > > private data > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Gujjar, Abhinandan S > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 8:54 AM > > > To: Doherty, Declan <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; > > > De Lara Guarch, Pablo <[email protected]>; > > > [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected]; Vangati, Narender <[email protected]>; > > > Gujjar, Abhinandan S <[email protected]>; Rao, Nikhil > > > <[email protected]> > > > Subject: [RFC v2, 1/2] cryptodev: add support to set session private > > > data > > > > > > Update rte_crypto_op to indicate private data offset. > > > > > > The application may want to store private data along with the > > > rte_cryptodev that is transparent to the rte_cryptodev layer. > > > For e.g., If an eventdev based application is submitting a > > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session operation and wants to indicate event > > > information required to construct a new event that will be enqueued > > > to eventdev after completion of the rte_cryptodev_sym_session > operation. > > > This patch provides a mechanism for the application to associate > > > this information with the rte_cryptodev_sym_session session. > > > The application can set the private data using > > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session_set_private_data() and retrieve it using > > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session_get_private_data(). > > > > Hi Abhinandan, > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Abhinandan Gujjar <[email protected]> > > > Signed-off-by: Nikhil Rao <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > Notes: > > > V2: > > > 1. Removed enum rte_crypto_op_private_data_type > > > 2. Corrected formatting > > > > > > lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto.h | 8 ++++++-- > > > lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h | 32 > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto.h > > > b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto.h > > > index 95cf861..14c87c8 100644 > > > --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto.h > > > +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto.h > > > @@ -84,8 +84,12 @@ struct rte_crypto_op { > > > */ > > > uint8_t sess_type; > > > /**< operation session type */ > > > - > > > - uint8_t reserved[5]; > > > + uint16_t private_data_offset; > > > + /**< Offset to indicate start of private data (if any). The private > > > + * data may be used by the application to store information which > > > + * should remain untouched in the library/driver > > > > Is this the offset for the private data after the crypto operation? > Yes. This is private date is meant for sessionless case. > > From your title, it looks like it is for the session private data, but > > then, this shouldn't be here. > Agree. > > If it is for the crypto operation, I suggest you to separate it in another > patch. > > Also, you should indicate where the offset starts from. For the IV, > > the offset is counted from the start of the rte_crypto_op, so I think > > it should be the same, to keep consistency. > Sure. I will make a separate patch for this changes. Add some more > information to make it clear. > > > > For the session private data, we see two options: > > > > 1 - Add a "valid" private data field in the rte_cryptodev_sym_session > > structure, so when it is set, it indicates that the session contains > > private data (a single bit would be enough, 1 to indicate there is, and 0 to > indicate there is not). > > This would go into the beginning of the structure, so this would > > require an ABI deprecation notice. > > This also assumes that the private data starts just after the session > > header > > > > 2 - Do not add an extra "valid" private data field in > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session structure, and add a small header in the > private data, which contains the "valid" > > bit. > > Then, when calling sym_session_get_private_data, this bit should be > checked. > > Note that the object that holds the session structure needs to be big > > enough to hold this value. > > If the object has only space for the sess_private_data array, then the > > session has no private data. > > Therefore, this approach might be less performant, but with no ABI > > deprecation required. > I am with option 2 with slight changes as below: > rte_cryptodev_sym_session_create() will have a flag as below indicating > private data exits or not. > { > - memset(sess, 0, (sizeof(void *) * nb_drivers)); > +memset(sess, 0, (sizeof(void *) * nb_drivers ) + > +sizeof(private_data_flag)); > } > and in > rte_cryptodev_get_header_session_size(void) > { > /* > * Header contains pointers to the private data > * of all registered drivers > */ > -return (sizeof(void *) * nb_drivers); > +return ((sizeof(void *) * nb_drivers) + sizeof(private_data_flag)); } With > this, a flag indicating private data exists or not will always have valid > value.
Sure, this should work. Go ahead and send a v3 with this change, separating the changes made in the session from the changes made in the crypto operation (so you will have 3 patches in total). Pablo > > > > > I would recommend you to send a deprecation notice for option 1, then > > check the performance of both option, and if needed, make the change > > in the structure, in 18.05. > > > > Regards, > > Pablo
