>
> On 01/17/2017 03:49 AM, Gonglei (Arei) wrote:
> > Hi Halil,
> >
> >>
> >> On 01/16/2017 01:43 PM, Gonglei (Arei) wrote:
> >>> Hi Michael and others,
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to redefine struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req is as below:
> >>>
> >>> struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req {
> >>> struct virtio_crypto_op_header header;
> >>>
> >>> union {
> >>> struct virtio_crypto_sym_data_req sym_req;
> >>> struct virtio_crypto_hash_data_req hash_req;
> >>> struct virtio_crypto_mac_data_req mac_req;
> >>> struct virtio_crypto_aead_data_req aead_req;
> >>> struct virtio_crypto_sym_data_req_non_sess
> >> sym_non_sess_req;
> >>> struct virtio_crypto_hash_data_req_non_sess
> >> hash_non_sess_req;
> >>> struct virtio_crypto_mac_data_req_non_sess
> >> mac_non_sess_req;
> >>> struct virtio_crypto_aead_data_req_non_sess
> >> aead_non_sess_req;
> >>> __u8 padding[72];
> >>> } u;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> The length of union in the structure will be changed, which from current
> >>> 48
> >> byte to 72 byte.
>
> Quoting seems broken :(
>
> >>>
> >>> We couldn't redefine a structure named
> >> virtio_crypto_op_data_req_non_sess,
> >>> Because the feature bits are for crypto services, not for the wrapper
> packet
> >> request.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You mean virtio_crypto_op_data_req.virtio_crypto_op_header.flags
> >> are conceptually meant for something else and using that field woulb
> >> be misuse?
> >>
> > Nope...
> >>
>
> I'm having huge difficulties following you. Please tell me what was
> the intended meaning of the sentence I commented! About which
> flags are you talking?
>
> >>> It's impossible to mixed use struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req and
> >>> struct named virtio_crypto_op_data_req_non_sess for one data virtqueue.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I do not understand what are you trying to say here. I think you
> >> should tell us what is the new feature and how it is guarded.
> >>
> >> Would this mean that session or non-session mode will be tied
> >> to the whole device, or to one data-queue. If it's data-queue
> >> level how is it controlled (e.g. control queue)?
> >>
> > ... I'm so sorry for confusing explanation. Let me try to explain it more
> > clear.
>
> Which explanation? Now I see three ideas as a more clear explanation
> where I figured we are discussing one idea.
>
> >
> > 1 ) The first idea: For support non-session mode crypto operations, I
> > introduce
> 4 feature bits
> > for different crypto services, they are:
> >
> > VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_CIPHER_NON_SESSION_MODE (1) non-session mode is
> available for CIPHER service.
> > VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_HASH_NON_SESSION_MODE (2) non-session mode is
> available for HASH service.
> > VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_MAC_NON_SESSION_MODE (3) non-session mode is
> available for MAC service.
> > VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_AEAD_NON_SESSION_MODE (4) non-session mode is
> available for AEAD service.
> >
> > but not only one feature bit, something like:
> >
> > VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_ NON_SESSION_MODE (1) non-session mode is available.
> >
> > Meanwhile, I define 4 new non-session mode structures for different crypto
> > services in order to keep compatibility to pre-existing driver.
> >
> > -*Advantages*:
> >
> > a) We can support different modes for different crypto services
> > according to which features are negotiated.
> >
> > b) The driver can still use the session mode when
> VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_*_NON_SESSION_MODE are negotiated,
> > which is under control by
> virtio_crypto_op_data_req.virtio_crypto_op_header.flags.
> >
> > - *Disadvantages*:
> >
> > The current crypto packets of all
> > crypto services (CIPHER, HASH, MAC and AEAD) are wrapped in structure
> > virtio_crypto_op_data_req by an union in the data plane.
> >
> > It will change the length of the union and break the pre-existing code
> > if still lay all non-session mode structures in strut
> > virtio_crypto_op_data_req
> > like this:
> >
> > struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req {
> > struct virtio_crypto_op_header header;
> >
> > union {
> > struct virtio_crypto_sym_data_req sym_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_hash_data_req hash_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_mac_data_req mac_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_aead_data_req aead_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_sym_data_req_non_sess
> sym_non_sess_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_hash_data_req_non_sess
> hash_non_sess_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_mac_data_req_non_sess
> mac_non_sess_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_aead_data_req_non_sess
> aead_non_sess_req;
> > __u8 padding[72];
> > } u;
> > };
>
> Yeah if you say a request has to look like this regardless
> of negotiated features, then you render the currently upstream
> code non-conform. That's pretty much a decisive disadvantage!
>
> >
> > So I should submit patches to fix them.
>
> And IMHO you can not fix that with patches because it's already
> released -- and you would have to travel back in time to fix
> it in time.
>
> >
> > 2) Another idea is define a non-session mode structure for strut
> virtio_crypto_op_data_req.
> >
> > struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req_non_sess {
> > struct virtio_crypto_op_header header;
> >
> > union {
> > struct virtio_crypto_sym_data_req_non_sess
> sym_non_sess_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_hash_data_req_non_sess
> hash_non_sess_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_mac_data_req_non_sess
> mac_non_sess_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_aead_data_req_non_sess
> aead_non_sess_req;
> > __u8 padding[72];
> > } u;
> > };
> >
> > And keep the pre-existing strut virtio_crypto_op_data_req:
> >
> > struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req {
> > struct virtio_crypto_op_header header;
> >
> > union {
> > struct virtio_crypto_sym_data_req sym_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_hash_data_req hash_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_mac_data_req mac_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_aead_data_req aead_req;
> > __u8 padding[48];
> > } u;
> > };
> >
> > - *Advantages*:
> >
> > Don't break the pre-existing code.
> >
> > - *Disadvantages*:
> >
> > Can't support feature bits for different crypto services,
> > only the whole device. That means we should only use the below feature
>
> I do not see why, and I do not see why should we want to have
> separate feature bits for each service.
>
That's because we need fine control so that we can know use session or
non-session based packet structure for each crypto services.
> > bit:
> >
> > VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_ NON_SESSION_MODE (1) non-session mode is available.
> >
> >
> > 3) The last idea is define a mixed structure for strut
> virtio_crypto_op_data_req.
> >
> > struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req_mixed {
> > struct virtio_crypto_op_header header;
> >
> > union {
> > struct virtio_crypto_sym_data_req sym_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_hash_data_req hash_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_mac_data_req mac_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_aead_data_req aead_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_sym_data_req_non_sess
> sym_non_sess_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_hash_data_req_non_sess
> hash_non_sess_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_mac_data_req_non_sess
> mac_non_sess_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_aead_data_req_non_sess
> aead_non_sess_req;
> > __u8 padding[72];
> > } u;
> > };
> >
> > And keep the pre-existing strut virtio_crypto_op_data_req:
> >
> > struct virtio_crypto_op_data_req {
> > struct virtio_crypto_op_header header;
> >
> > union {
> > struct virtio_crypto_sym_data_req sym_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_hash_data_req hash_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_mac_data_req mac_req;
> > struct virtio_crypto_aead_data_req aead_req;
> > __u8 padding[48];
> > } u;
> > };
> >
> > That means we should use below five feature bits:
> >
> > VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_ NON_SESSION_MODE (0) non-session mode is available.
> > VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_CIPHER_NON_SESSION_MODE (1) non-session mode is
> available for CIPHER service.
> > VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_HASH_NON_SESSION_MODE (2) non-session mode is
> available for HASH service.
> > VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_MAC_NON_SESSION_MODE (3) non-session mode is
> available for MAC service.
> > VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_AEAD_NON_SESSION_MODE (4) non-session mode is
> available for AEAD service.
> >
> > -*Advantages*:
> >
> > Both idea 1) and 2).
> >
> > -*Disadvantages*:
> >
> > None.
> >
> > What's your opinion? Thanks a lot!
> >
> >
>
> You kindly forget to tell us how it is to be decided which of the unioned
> types is actually relevant for an instance. And also forget to tell
> us which struct is used under which circumstances (that is feature
> bits).
>
Exactly, there're some descriptions in v16.
> Well it does not matter. Have seen v16 and there you went for idea 3,
> and decided to use virtio_crypto_op_header.flags to decide if we
> have a session based or a stateless request at hand if feature bits
> allow both. I will try to do a proper review there.
>
Yes. Looking forward to your feedback, thanks!
> My opinion is that you should be more precise when describing
> your ideas if you want to hear a more constrictive opinion than
> this one.
>
Sure, sorry about that.
Thanks,
-Gonglei
