On 01/18/2017 09:22 AM, Gonglei wrote:
> The virtio crypto device is a virtual crypto device (ie. hardware
> crypto accelerator card). Currently, the virtio crypto device provides
> the following crypto services: CIPHER, MAC, HASH, and AEAD.
>
> In this patch, CIPHER, MAC, HASH, AEAD services are introduced.
>
> VIRTIO-153
>
> Signed-off-by: Gonglei <arei.gong...@huawei.com>
> CC: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com>
> CC: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com>
> CC: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com>
> CC: Lingli Deng <denglin...@chinamobile.com>
> CC: Jani Kokkonen <jani.kokko...@huawei.com>
> CC: Ola Liljedahl <ola.liljed...@arm.com>
> CC: Varun Sethi <varun.se...@freescale.com>
> CC: Zeng Xin <xin.z...@intel.com>
> CC: Keating Brian <brian.a.keat...@intel.com>
> CC: Ma Liang J <liang.j...@intel.com>
> CC: Griffin John <john.grif...@intel.com>
> CC: Mihai Claudiu Caraman <mike.cara...@nxp.com>
> ---
> content.tex | 2 +
> virtio-crypto.tex | 1245
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 1247 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 virtio-crypto.tex
>
> diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex
> index 4b45678..ab75f78 100644
> --- a/content.tex
> +++ b/content.tex
> @@ -5750,6 +5750,8 @@ descriptor for the \field{sense_len}, \field{residual},
> \field{status_qualifier}, \field{status}, \field{response} and
> \field{sense} fields.
>
> +\input{virtio-crypto.tex}
> +
> \chapter{Reserved Feature Bits}\label{sec:Reserved Feature Bits}
>
> Currently there are three device-independent feature bits defined:
> diff --git a/virtio-crypto.tex b/virtio-crypto.tex
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..732cd30
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/virtio-crypto.tex
> @@ -0,0 +1,1245 @@
> +\section{Crypto Device}\label{sec:Device Types / Crypto Device}
> +
> +The virtio crypto device is a virtual cryptography device as well as a kind
> of
> +virtual hardware accelerator for virtual machines. The encryption and
> +decryption requests are placed in any of the data active queues and are
> ultimately handled by the
Am I the only one having a problem with 'data active queues'?
I have objected on this before.
> +backend crypto accelerators. The second kind of queue is the control queue
> used to create
> +or destroy sessions for symmetric algorithms and will control some advanced
> +features in the future. The virtio crypto device provides the following
> crypto
> +services: CIPHER, MAC, HASH, and AEAD.
> +
> +
> +\subsection{Device ID}\label{sec:Device Types / Crypto Device / Device ID}
> +
> +20
> +
> +\subsection{Virtqueues}\label{sec:Device Types / Crypto Device / Virtqueues}
> +
> +\begin{description}
> +\item[0] dataq1
> +\item[\ldots]
> +\item[N-1] dataqN
> +\item[N] controlq
> +\end{description}
> +
> +N is set by \field{max_dataqueues}.
> +
> +\subsection{Feature bits}\label{sec:Device Types / Crypto Device / 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.
> +
I'm not sure that "non-session" entirely correct grammatically. I would
prefer sessionless as alternatively proposed by Stefan, or even stateless.
I think stateless is the phrase most frequently used to describe what
we want to introduce -- that is basically response = f(request) and
not response = f(request, server_state) where the server_state is
a is determined by a series of previous interactions between the server
and the client).
> +\subsubsection{Feature bit requirements}\label{sec:Device Types / Crypto
> Device / Feature bits}
> +
> +Some crypto feature bits require other crypto feature bits
> +(see \ref{drivernormative:Basic Facilities of a Virtio Device / Feature
> Bits}):
> +
> +\begin{description}
> +\item[VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_CIPHER_NON_SESSION_MODE] Requires
> VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_NON_SESSION_MODE.
> +\item[VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_HASH_NON_SESSION_MODE] Requires
> VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_NON_SESSION_MODE.
> +\item[VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_MAC_NON_SESSION_MODE] Requires
> VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_NON_SESSION_MODE.
> +\item[VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_AEAD_NON_SESSION_MODE] Requires
> VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_NON_SESSION_MODE.
> +\end{description}
> +
> +\subsection{Device configuration layout}\label{sec:Device Types / Crypto
> Device / Device configuration layout}
> +
> +The following driver-read-only configuration fields are defined:
> +
> +\begin{lstlisting}
> +struct virtio_crypto_config {
> + le32 status;
> + le32 max_dataqueues;
> + le32 crypto_services;
> + /* Detailed algorithms mask */
> + le32 cipher_algo_l;
> + le32 cipher_algo_h;
> + le32 hash_algo;
> + le32 mac_algo_l;
> + le32 mac_algo_h;
> + le32 aead_algo;
> + /* Maximum length of cipher key */
> + le32 max_cipher_key_len;
> + /* Maximum length of authenticated key */
> + le32 max_auth_key_len;
> + le32 reserved;
> + /* Maximum size of each crypto request's content */
> + le64 max_size;
> +};
> +\end{lstlisting}
> +
> +The value of the \field{status} field is VIRTIO_CRYPTO_S_HW_READY or
> ~VIRTIO_CRYPTO_S_HW_READY.
Not entirely happy with this. What you want to say is reserved
for future use, or? Would it make sense to have a general note
-- in a similar fashion like for 'sizes are in bytes' -- for
reserved for future use?
One possible formulation would be:
"In this specification, unless explicitly stated otherwise,
fields and bits reserved for future use shall be zeroed out.
Both the a device or a driver device and the driver should
detect violations of this rule, and deny the requested
operation in an appropriate way if possible."
> +
> +\begin{lstlisting}
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_S_HW_READY (1 << 0)
> +\end{lstlisting}
> +
> +The VIRTIO_CRYPTO_S_HW_READY flag is used to show whether the hardware is
> ready to work or not.
I do not like hardware here.
> +
> +The following driver-read-only fields include \field{max_dataqueues}, which
> specifies the
Why following?
> +maximum number of data virtqueues (dataq1\ldots dataqN), and
> \field{crypto_services},
> +which indicates the crypto services the virtio crypto supports.
> +
> +The following services are defined:
> +
> +\begin{lstlisting}
> +/* CIPHER service */
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_CIPHER 0
> +/* HASH service */
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_HASH 1
> +/* MAC (Message Authentication Codes) service */
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_MAC 2
> +/* AEAD (Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data) service */
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_AEAD 3
> +\end{lstlisting}
> +
> +The last driver-read-only fields specify detailed algorithms masks
> +the device offers for corresponding services. The following CIPHER algorithms
> +are defined:
You do not establish an explicit relationship between the fields and the
macros for the flags. These are flags or? It seems quite common in the
spec to use _F_ in flag names. Would it be appropriate here?
> +
> +\begin{lstlisting}
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_NO_CIPHER 0
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_ARC4 1
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_AES_ECB 2
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_AES_CBC 3
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_AES_CTR 4
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_DES_ECB 5
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_DES_CBC 6
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_3DES_ECB 7
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_3DES_CBC 8
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_3DES_CTR 9
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_KASUMI_F8 10
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_SNOW3G_UEA2 11
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_AES_F8 12
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_AES_XTS 13
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_ZUC_EEA3 14
> +\end{lstlisting}
> +
> +The following HASH algorithms are defined:
> +
> +\begin{lstlisting}
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_NO_HASH 0
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_HASH_MD5 1
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_HASH_SHA1 2
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_HASH_SHA_224 3
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_HASH_SHA_256 4
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_HASH_SHA_384 5
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_HASH_SHA_512 6
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_HASH_SHA3_224 7
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_HASH_SHA3_256 8
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_HASH_SHA3_384 9
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_HASH_SHA3_512 10
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_HASH_SHA3_SHAKE128 11
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_HASH_SHA3_SHAKE256 12
> +\end{lstlisting}
> +
> +The following MAC algorithms are defined:
> +
> +\begin{lstlisting}
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_NO_MAC 0
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_HMAC_MD5 1
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_HMAC_SHA1 2
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_HMAC_SHA_224 3
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_HMAC_SHA_256 4
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_HMAC_SHA_384 5
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_HMAC_SHA_512 6
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_CMAC_3DES 25
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_CMAC_AES 26
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_KASUMI_F9 27
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_SNOW3G_UIA2 28
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_GMAC_AES 41
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_GMAC_TWOFISH 42
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_CBCMAC_AES 49
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_CBCMAC_KASUMI_F9 50
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_XCBC_AES 53
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_ZUC_EIA3 54
> +\end{lstlisting}
> +
> +The following AEAD algorithms are defined:
> +
> +\begin{lstlisting}
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_NO_AEAD 0
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_AEAD_GCM 1
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_AEAD_CCM 2
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305 3
> +\end{lstlisting}
> +
Would it make sense to interleave the flag definition
with the struct virtio_crypto_config?
> +\begin{note}
> +Any other values are reserved for future use.
Are these flags or values? I do not think values is appropriate here.
> +\end{note}
> +
Some fields are missing here. This is inconsistent. Either
you should describe all or none (here).
> +\devicenormative{\subsubsection}{Device configuration layout}{Device Types /
> Crypto Device / Device configuration layout}
> +
> +\begin{itemize*}
> +\item The device MUST set \field{max_dataqueues} to between 1 and 65535
> inclusive.
> +\item The device MUST set \field{status} based on the status of the
> hardware-backed implementation.
What is a hardware-backend?
> +\item The device MUST accept and handle requests after \field{status} is set
> to VIRTIO_CRYPTO_S_HW_READY.
Shouldn't this be the other way around (if VIRTIO_CRYPTO_S_HW_READY
then reject). Is a not well formed request or a backend failure considered?
What does handle mean? What should happen if requests are submitted
before VIRTIO_CRYPTO_S_HW_READY is set?
> +\item The device MUST set \field{crypto_services} based on the crypto
> services the device offers.
> +\item The device MUST set detailed algorithms masks based on the
> \field{crypto_services} field.
> +\item The device MUST set \field{max_size} to show the maximum size of
> crypto request the device supports.
> +\item The device MUST set \field{max_cipher_key_len} to show the maximum
> length of cipher key if the device supports CIPHER service.
> +\item The device MUST set \field{max_auth_key_len} to show the maximum
> length of authenticated key if the device supports MAC service.
> +\end{itemize*}
> +
> +\drivernormative{\subsubsection}{Device configuration layout}{Device Types /
> Crypto Device / Device configuration layout}
> +
> +\begin{itemize*}
> +\item The driver MUST read the ready \field{status} from the bottom bit of
> status to check whether the hardware-backed
> + implementation is ready or not, and the driver MUST reread it after
> the device reset.
> +\item The driver MUST NOT transmit any packets to the device if the ready
> \field{status} is not set.
> +\item The driver MUST read \field{max_dataqueues} field to discover the
> number of data queues the device supports.
> +\item The driver MUST read \field{crypto_services} field to discover which
> services the device is able to offer.
> +\item The driver MUST read the detailed algorithms fields based on
> \field{crypto_services} field.
> +\item The driver SHOULD read \field{max_size} to discover the maximum size
> of crypto request the device supports.
> +\item The driver SHOULD read \field{max_cipher_key_len} to discover the
> maximum length of cipher key the device supports.
> +\item The driver SHOULD read \field{max_auth_key_len} to discover the
> maximum length of authenticated key the device supports.
> +\end{itemize*}
> +
> +\subsection{Device Initialization}\label{sec:Device Types / Crypto Device /
> Device Initialization}
> +
> +\drivernormative{\subsubsection}{Device Initialization}{Device Types /
> Crypto Device / Device Initialization}
> +
> +\begin{itemize*}
> +\item The driver MUST identify and initialize the control virtqueue.
But does not have to identify and initialize any data virtqueues?
> +\item The driver MUST read the supported crypto services from bits of
> \field{crypto_services}.
> +\item The driver MUST read the supported algorithms based on
> \field{crypto_services} field.
> +\end{itemize*}
> +
> +\devicenormative{\subsubsection}{Device Initialization}{Device Types /
> Crypto Device / Device Initialization}
> +
> +\begin{itemize*}
> +\item The device MUST be configured with at least one accelerator which
> executes backend crypto operations.
What does configured mean here? Is this initialization requirement.
> +\item The device MUST write the \field{crypto_services} field based on the
> capacities of the backend accelerator.
> +\end{itemize*}
> +
How do 'Initialization' and 'Configuration Layout' requirements relate to
each-other.
> +\subsection{Device Operation}\label{sec:Device Types / Crypto Device /
> Device Operation}
> +
> +Packets can be transmitted by placing them in both the controlq and dataq.
> +Packets consist of a general header and a service-specific request.
Are packets and requests synonyms?
> +Where 'general header' is for all crypto requests, and 'service specific
> requests'
>From below it seems you have two types of 'general header', but up until this
point it seems there is a single definition. Of course, this does not
really matter.
> +are composed of operation parameter + output data + input data in general.
> +Operation parameters are algorithm-specific parameters, output data is the
> +data that should be utilized in operations, and input data is equal to
> +"operation result + result data".
> +
> +The device can support both session mode (See \ref{sec:Device Types / Crypto
> Device / Device Operation / Control Virtqueue / Session operation}) and
> non-session mode, for example,
> +As VIRTIO_CRYPTO_F_CIPHER_NON_SESSION_MODE feature bit is negotiated, the
> driver can use non-session mode for CIPHER service, otherwise it can only use
> session mode.
Grammar: Does not seem right to me. 'As' seems off and this could be two
sentences.
> +
> +\begin{note}
> +The basic unit of all data length the byte.
> +\end{note}
> +
> +The general header for controlq is as follows:
> +
> +\begin{lstlisting}
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_OPCODE(service, op) (((service) << 8) | (op))
> +
> +struct virtio_crypto_ctrl_header {
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_CREATE_SESSION \
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_OPCODE(VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_CIPHER, 0x02)
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_DESTROY_SESSION \
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_OPCODE(VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_CIPHER, 0x03)
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_HASH_CREATE_SESSION \
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_OPCODE(VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_HASH, 0x02)
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_HASH_DESTROY_SESSION \
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_OPCODE(VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_HASH, 0x03)
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_CREATE_SESSION \
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_OPCODE(VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_MAC, 0x02)
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC_DESTROY_SESSION \
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_OPCODE(VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_MAC, 0x03)
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_AEAD_CREATE_SESSION \
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_OPCODE(VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_AEAD, 0x02)
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_AEAD_DESTROY_SESSION \
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_OPCODE(VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_AEAD, 0x03)
> + le32 opcode;
> + le32 algo;
> + le32 flag;
> + /* data virtqueue id */
> + le32 queue_id;
> +};
> +\end{lstlisting}
> +
> +The general header of dataq:
> +
> +\begin{lstlisting}
> +struct virtio_crypto_op_header {
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_ENCRYPT \
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_OPCODE(VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_CIPHER, 0x00)
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_CIPHER_DECRYPT \
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_OPCODE(VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_CIPHER, 0x01)
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_HASH \
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_OPCODE(VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_HASH, 0x00)
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAC \
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_OPCODE(VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_MAC, 0x00)
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_AEAD_ENCRYPT \
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_OPCODE(VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_AEAD, 0x00)
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_AEAD_DECRYPT \
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_OPCODE(VIRTIO_CRYPTO_SERVICE_AEAD, 0x01)
> + le32 opcode;
> + /* algo should be service-specific algorithms */
> + le32 algo;
> + /* session_id should be service-specific algorithms */
> + le64 session_id;
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_FLAG_SESSION_MODE 1
> +#define VIRTIO_CRYPTO_FLAG_NON_SESSION_MODE 2
Use _F_ istead of _FLAG_?
> + /* control flag to control the request */
> + le32 flag;
> + le32 padding;
> +};
> +\end{lstlisting}
> +
> +The device can set the operation status as follows: VIRTIO_CRYPTO_OK:
> success;
> +VIRTIO_CRYPTO_ERR: failure or device error; VIRTIO_CRYPTO_NOTSUPP: not
> supported;
> +VIRTIO_CRYPTO_INVSESS: invalid session ID when executing crypto operations.
> +
> +\begin{lstlisting}
> +enum VIRITO_CRYPTO_STATUS {
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_OK = 0,
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_ERR = 1,
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_BADMSG = 2,
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_NOTSUPP = 3,
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_INVSESS = 4,
> + VIRTIO_CRYPTO_MAX
> +};
> +\end{lstlisting}
> +
> +\subsubsection{Control Virtqueue}\label{sec:Device Types / Crypto Device /
> Device Operation / Control Virtqueue}
> +
> +The driver uses the control virtqueue to send control commands to the
> +device which handles the non-data plane operations, such as session
What is a 'non-data plane'?
> +operations (See \ref{sec:Device Types / Crypto Device / Device Operation /
> Control Virtqueue / Session operation}).
Reviewed up until here. Depending on how things evolve will try to
review the rest too in the following days.
A question and a remark as a closing word:
* Are there already some kernel and qemu patches for this 'non-session' stuff?
* I think some proofreading (and eventually also touch-up) by a native speaker
would really benefit us. Sadly my grammar skills are very questionable, so
I can't help much. Nevertheless since it is a spec, I think we sould strive
for high standards in language usage too.
