[dpdk-dev,1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session private data
Checks
Commit Message
Hi Akhil,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.goyal@nxp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:32 PM
> To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>; Doherty, Declan
> <declan.doherty@intel.com>; Jacob, Jerin
> <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati@intel.com>; Rao,
> Nikhil <nikhil.rao@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session private data
>
> On 1/16/2018 5:59 PM, Gujjar, Abhinandan S wrote:
> > Hi Akhil,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.goyal@nxp.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 5:30 PM
> >> To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>; Doherty,
> >> Declan <declan.doherty@intel.com>; Jacob, Jerin
> >> <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati@intel.com>;
> >> Rao, Nikhil <nikhil.rao@intel.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session
> >> private data
> >>
> >> Hi Abhinandan,
> >> On 1/16/2018 5:06 PM, Gujjar, Abhinandan S wrote:
> >>> Hi Akhil,
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.goyal@nxp.com]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 2:52 PM
> >>>> To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>; Doherty,
> >>>> Declan <declan.doherty@intel.com>; Jacob, Jerin
> >>>> <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>
> >>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati@intel.com>;
> >>>> Rao, Nikhil <nikhil.rao@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.goyal@nxp.com]
> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 12:56 PM
> >>>>>> To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>; Doherty,
> >>>>>> Declan <declan.doherty@intel.com>; Jacob, Jerin
> >>>>>> <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>
> >>>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati@intel.com>;
> >>>>>> Rao, Nikhil <nikhil.rao@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.goyal@nxp.com]
> >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 11:55 AM
> >>>>>>>> To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>;
> >>>>>>>> Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty@intel.com>
> >>>>>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender
> >>>>>>>> <narender.vangati@intel.com>; Rao, Nikhil
> >>>>>>>> <nikhil.rao@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).
> > Thanks for clarifying. At this time, without calling set API and calling get API
> will get some value.
> > How do you validating whether the data is valid or not?
> > Since application has called set API and same is indicated by
> > private_data_type flag, I thought data got by get API can be safely assume to
> be valid.
> > Not sure, if you have better way to validate the data from get API.
>
> Got your point, we cannot validate in the library that private data is valid or not
> as we do not know the values of the data.
>
> However, got one more option to work with.
> You can have a priv_data_offset (similar to crypto_op) in the
> rte_cryptodev_sym_session. In that way it will look similar in both the cases and
> we do not have to make any assumption that the priv data is present after "sess
> * nb_drivers ".
> So in this way we can know if offset is zero, then data is not valid.
> And procedure will also be same in both the cases.
> If it is in crypto_op, then we set the priv_data_off in crypto_op, and if it is there
> in session, then we set the priv_data_off in session.
I guess, you are suggesting below changes:
I am ok with this.
Declan/Pablo,
Is this ok? Do you see any impact on performance or anything else has to be considered?
>
> >
> >>
> >>> 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
> >>>
> > Abhinandan
> >
Abhinandan
Comments
Hi Abhinandan,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gujjar, Abhinandan S
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 6:35 AM
> To: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; Doherty, Declan
> <declan.doherty@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Jacob, Jerin
> <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati@intel.com>; Rao,
> Nikhil <nikhil.rao@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session private
> data
>
> Hi Akhil,
>
...
> I guess, you are suggesting below changes:
> diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> index 56958a6..057c39a 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> @@ -892,6 +892,8 @@ struct rte_cryptodev_data {
>
> /** Cryptodev symmetric crypto session */ struct
> rte_cryptodev_sym_session {
> + uint16_t private_data_offset;
> + /**< Private data offset */
> __extension__ void *sess_private_data[0];
> /**< Private session material */ }; I am ok with this.
>
> Declan/Pablo,
> Is this ok? Do you see any impact on performance or anything else has to be
> considered?
This is breaking ABI, and since there is a zero length array, this latter has to be at the end of the structure.
Therefore, this is not a valid option unless ABI deprecation is announced and then it could be merged in the next release.
Pablo
Hi Akhil,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:16 PM
> To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>; Akhil Goyal
> <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty@intel.com>; Jacob,
> Jerin <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati@intel.com>; Rao,
> Nikhil <nikhil.rao@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session private data
>
> Hi Abhinandan,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gujjar, Abhinandan S
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 6:35 AM
> > To: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; Doherty, Declan
> > <declan.doherty@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> > <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Jacob, Jerin
> > <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati@intel.com>; Rao,
> > Nikhil <nikhil.rao@intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session
> > private data
> >
> > Hi Akhil,
> >
>
> ...
>
> > I guess, you are suggesting below changes:
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > index 56958a6..057c39a 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > @@ -892,6 +892,8 @@ struct rte_cryptodev_data {
> >
> > /** Cryptodev symmetric crypto session */ struct
> > rte_cryptodev_sym_session {
> > + uint16_t private_data_offset;
> > + /**< Private data offset */
> > __extension__ void *sess_private_data[0];
> > /**< Private session material */ }; I am ok with this.
> >
> > Declan/Pablo,
> > Is this ok? Do you see any impact on performance or anything else has
> > to be considered?
>
> This is breaking ABI, and since there is a zero length array, this latter has to be at
> the end of the structure.
> Therefore, this is not a valid option unless ABI deprecation is announced and
> then it could be merged in the next release.
What is your opinion on this?
Should we consider retaining the enum rte_crypto_op_private_data_type?
>
> Pablo
Abhinandan
Hi Abhinandan,
On 1/17/2018 3:35 PM, Gujjar, Abhinandan S wrote:
> Hi Akhil,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: De Lara Guarch, Pablo
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:16 PM
>> To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>; Akhil Goyal
>> <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty@intel.com>; Jacob,
>> Jerin <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati@intel.com>; Rao,
>> Nikhil <nikhil.rao@intel.com>
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session private data
>>
>> Hi Abhinandan,
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Gujjar, Abhinandan S
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 6:35 AM
>>> To: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; Doherty, Declan
>>> <declan.doherty@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
>>> <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Jacob, Jerin
>>> <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>
>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati@intel.com>; Rao,
>>> Nikhil <nikhil.rao@intel.com>
>>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session
>>> private data
>>>
>>> Hi Akhil,
>>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> I guess, you are suggesting below changes:
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
>>> b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
>>> index 56958a6..057c39a 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
>>> @@ -892,6 +892,8 @@ struct rte_cryptodev_data {
>>>
>>> /** Cryptodev symmetric crypto session */ struct
>>> rte_cryptodev_sym_session {
>>> + uint16_t private_data_offset;
>>> + /**< Private data offset */
>>> __extension__ void *sess_private_data[0];
>>> /**< Private session material */ }; I am ok with this.
>>>
>>> Declan/Pablo,
>>> Is this ok? Do you see any impact on performance or anything else has
>>> to be considered?
>>
>> This is breaking ABI, and since there is a zero length array, this latter has to be at
>> the end of the structure.
>> Therefore, this is not a valid option unless ABI deprecation is announced and
>> then it could be merged in the next release.
> What is your opinion on this?
> Should we consider retaining the enum rte_crypto_op_private_data_type?
As per our previous discussion we are anyway pushing crypto adapter to
next release, then we do have time for the deprecation notice to be sent.
Or you can reserve the first byte of private data (internal to library)
in the session to check whether the private data is valid or not.
IMO, private data offset in session is a better approach instead of
adding one more enum. Others can suggest.
-Akhil
>>
>> Pablo
> Abhinandan
>
Hi Akhil,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.goyal@nxp.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 4:23 PM
> To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Doherty, Declan
> <declan.doherty@intel.com>; Jacob, Jerin
> <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati@intel.com>; Rao,
> Nikhil <nikhil.rao@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session private data
>
> Hi Abhinandan,
> On 1/17/2018 3:35 PM, Gujjar, Abhinandan S wrote:
> > Hi Akhil,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:16 PM
> >> To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>; Akhil Goyal
> >> <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty@intel.com>;
> >> Jacob, Jerin <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati@intel.com>;
> >> Rao, Nikhil <nikhil.rao@intel.com>
> >> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session
> >> private data
> >>
> >> Hi Abhinandan,
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Gujjar, Abhinandan S
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 6:35 AM
> >>> To: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; Doherty, Declan
> >>> <declan.doherty@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> >>> <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Jacob, Jerin
> >>> <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>
> >>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati@intel.com>;
> >>> Rao, Nikhil <nikhil.rao@intel.com>
> >>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session
> >>> private data
> >>>
> >>> Hi Akhil,
> >>>
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> I guess, you are suggesting below changes:
> >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> >>> b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> >>> index 56958a6..057c39a 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> >>> +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> >>> @@ -892,6 +892,8 @@ struct rte_cryptodev_data {
> >>>
> >>> /** Cryptodev symmetric crypto session */ struct
> >>> rte_cryptodev_sym_session {
> >>> + uint16_t private_data_offset;
> >>> + /**< Private data offset */
> >>> __extension__ void *sess_private_data[0];
> >>> /**< Private session material */ }; I am ok with this.
> >>>
> >>> Declan/Pablo,
> >>> Is this ok? Do you see any impact on performance or anything else
> >>> has to be considered?
> >>
> >> This is breaking ABI, and since there is a zero length array, this
> >> latter has to be at the end of the structure.
> >> Therefore, this is not a valid option unless ABI deprecation is
> >> announced and then it could be merged in the next release.
> > What is your opinion on this?
> > Should we consider retaining the enum rte_crypto_op_private_data_type?
>
> As per our previous discussion we are anyway pushing crypto adapter to next
> release, then we do have time for the deprecation notice to be sent.
Not sure, it is really worth breaking ABI or have an enum.
> Or you can reserve the first byte of private data (internal to library) in the session
> to check whether the private data is valid or not.
Regarding reserving the first byte which validates the rest of the metadata data,
unless this byte is also included part of rte_cryptodev_sym_session_create()
i.e.
memset(sess, 0, (sizeof(void *) * nb_drivers + 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 + private_data_flag);
}
Without above changes, the flag content can't be just trusted. Do you agree?
Pablo/Declan,
Hope the changes are ok? ABI breakage or anything has to be considered again?
>
> IMO, private data offset in session is a better approach instead of adding one
> more enum. Others can suggest.
@Others, please provide your inputs so that I can prepare the next patch.
-Abhinandan
>
> -Akhil
> >>
> >> Pablo
> > Abhinandan
> >
Hi All,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gujjar, Abhinandan S
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 12:22 PM
> To: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Doherty, Declan
> <declan.doherty@intel.com>; Jacob, Jerin
> <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati@intel.com>; Rao,
> Nikhil <nikhil.rao@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session private data
>
> Hi Akhil,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.goyal@nxp.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 4:23 PM
> > To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>; De Lara
> > Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Doherty, Declan
> > <declan.doherty@intel.com>; Jacob, Jerin
> > <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati@intel.com>; Rao,
> > Nikhil <nikhil.rao@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session
> > private data
> >
> > Hi Abhinandan,
> > On 1/17/2018 3:35 PM, Gujjar, Abhinandan S wrote:
> > > Hi Akhil,
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:16 PM
> > >> To: Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>; Akhil Goyal
> > >> <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty@intel.com>;
> > >> Jacob, Jerin <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>
> > >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati@intel.com>;
> > >> Rao, Nikhil <nikhil.rao@intel.com>
> > >> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session
> > >> private data
> > >>
> > >> Hi Abhinandan,
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: Gujjar, Abhinandan S
> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 6:35 AM
> > >>> To: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; Doherty, Declan
> > >>> <declan.doherty@intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> > >>> <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>; Jacob, Jerin
> > >>> <Jerin.JacobKollanukkaran@cavium.com>
> > >>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Vangati, Narender <narender.vangati@intel.com>;
> > >>> Rao, Nikhil <nikhil.rao@intel.com>
> > >>> Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] lib/cryptodev: add support to set session
> > >>> private data
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Akhil,
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> ...
> > >>
> > >>> I guess, you are suggesting below changes:
> > >>> diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > >>> b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > >>> index 56958a6..057c39a 100644
> > >>> --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > >>> +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h
> > >>> @@ -892,6 +892,8 @@ struct rte_cryptodev_data {
> > >>>
> > >>> /** Cryptodev symmetric crypto session */ struct
> > >>> rte_cryptodev_sym_session {
> > >>> + uint16_t private_data_offset;
> > >>> + /**< Private data offset */
> > >>> __extension__ void *sess_private_data[0];
> > >>> /**< Private session material */ }; I am ok with this.
> > >>>
> > >>> Declan/Pablo,
> > >>> Is this ok? Do you see any impact on performance or anything else
> > >>> has to be considered?
> > >>
> > >> This is breaking ABI, and since there is a zero length array, this
> > >> latter has to be at the end of the structure.
> > >> Therefore, this is not a valid option unless ABI deprecation is
> > >> announced and then it could be merged in the next release.
> > > What is your opinion on this?
> > > Should we consider retaining the enum rte_crypto_op_private_data_type?
> >
> > As per our previous discussion we are anyway pushing crypto adapter to
> > next release, then we do have time for the deprecation notice to be sent.
> Not sure, it is really worth breaking ABI or have an enum.
> > Or you can reserve the first byte of private data (internal to
> > library) in the session to check whether the private data is valid or not.
> Regarding reserving the first byte which validates the rest of the metadata data,
> unless this byte is also included part of rte_cryptodev_sym_session_create()
> i.e.
> memset(sess, 0, (sizeof(void *) * nb_drivers + 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 + private_data_flag); } Without above
> changes, the flag content can't be just trusted. Do you agree?
I will send the next patch based on above approach.
>
> Pablo/Declan,
> Hope the changes are ok? ABI breakage or anything has to be considered again?
> >
> > IMO, private data offset in session is a better approach instead of
> > adding one more enum. Others can suggest.
> @Others, please provide your inputs so that I can prepare the next patch.
>
> -Abhinandan
> >
> > -Akhil
> > >>
> > >> Pablo
> > > Abhinandan
> > >
@@ -892,6 +892,8 @@ struct rte_cryptodev_data {
/** Cryptodev symmetric crypto session */
struct rte_cryptodev_sym_session {
+ uint16_t private_data_offset;
+ /**< Private data offset */
__extension__ void *sess_private_data[0];
/**< Private session material */
};