DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: "Kinsella, Ray" <mdr@ashroe.eu>, Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>
Cc: "david.marchand@redhat.com" <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
	"hemant.agrawal@nxp.com" <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
	"pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com" <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>,
	"fiona.trahe@intel.com" <fiona.trahe@intel.com>,
	"declan.doherty@intel.com" <declan.doherty@intel.com>,
	"matan@nvidia.com" <matan@nvidia.com>,
	"g.singh@nxp.com" <g.singh@nxp.com>,
	"roy.fan.zhang@intel.com" <roy.fan.zhang@intel.com>,
	"jianjay.zhou@huawei.com" <jianjay.zhou@huawei.com>,
	"asomalap@amd.com" <asomalap@amd.com>,
	"ruifeng.wang@arm.com" <ruifeng.wang@arm.com>,
	"konstantin.ananyev@intel.com" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>,
	"radu.nicolau@intel.com" <radu.nicolau@intel.com>,
	"ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com" <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>,
	Nagadheeraj Rottela <rnagadheeraj@marvell.com>,
	Ankur Dwivedi <adwivedi@marvell.com>,
	"ciara.power@intel.com" <ciara.power@intel.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
	"Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	bruce.richardson@intel.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] cryptodev: remove LIST_END enumerators
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 15:54:44 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2012129.4fn6nFIri4@thomas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR18MB467239ADF5F76C4EDEA4E5BCDFB69@PH0PR18MB4672.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>

12/10/2021 15:38, Anoob Joseph:
> From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> > 12/10/2021 13:34, Anoob Joseph:
> > > From: Kinsella, Ray <mdr@ashroe.eu>
> > > > On 12/10/2021 11:50, Anoob Joseph wrote:
> > > > > From: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
> > > > >>> On 08/10/2021 21:45, Akhil Goyal wrote:
> > > > >>>> Remove *_LIST_END enumerators from asymmetric crypto lib to
> > > > >>>> avoid ABI breakage for every new addition in enums.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
> > > > >>>> ---
> > > > >>>> -	} else if (xform->xform_type >=
> > > > >>> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_TYPE_LIST_END
> > > > >>>> +	} else if (xform->xform_type >
> > RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_ECPM
> > [...]
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> So I am not sure that this is an improvement.
> > 
> > Indeed, it is not an improvement.
> > 
> > > > >>> The cryptodev issue we had, was that _LIST_END was being used to
> > > > >>> size arrays.
> > > > >>> And that broke when new algorithms got added. Is that an issue,
> > > > >>> in this
> > > > case?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yes we did this same exercise for symmetric crypto enums earlier.
> > > > >> Asym enums were left as it was experimental at that point.
> > > > >> They are still experimental, but thought of making this uniform
> > > > >> throughout DPDK enums.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I am not sure that swapping out _LIST_END, and then littering
> > > > >>> the code with RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_ECPM and
> > > > >>> RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_SHARED_SECRET_COMPUTE, is an
> > improvement
> > > > >> here.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> My 2c is that from an ABI PoV RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_LIST_END is not
> > > > >>> better or worse, than
> > > > RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_SHARED_SECRET_COMPUTE?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Interested to hear other thoughts.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I don’t have any better solution for avoiding ABI issues for now.
> > > > >> The change is for avoiding ABI breakage. But we can drop this
> > > > >> patch For now as asym is still experimental.
> > > > >
> > > > > [Anoob] Having LIST_END would preclude new additions to asymmetric
> > algos?
> > > > If yes, then I would suggest we address it now.
> > > >
> > > > Not at all - but it can be problematic, if two versions of DPDK
> > > > disagree with the value of LIST_END.
> > > >
> > > > > Looking at the "problematic changes", we only have 2-3 application
> > > > > & PMD changes. For unit test application, we could may be do
> > > > > something like,
> > > >
> > > > The essental functionality not that different, I am just not sure
> > > > that the verbosity below is helping.
> > > > What you are really trying to guard against is people using LIST_END
> > > > to size arrays.
> > >
> > > [Anoob] Our problem is application using LIST_END (which comes from library)
> > to determine the number of iterations for the loop. My suggestion is to modify
> > the UT such that, we could use RTE_DIM(types) (which comes from application)
> > to determine iterations of loop. This would solve the problem, right?
> > 
> > The problem is not the application.
> > Are you asking the app to define DPDK types?
> 
> [Anoob] I didn't understand how you concluded that.

Because you define a specific array in the test app.

> The app is supposed to test "n" asymmetric features supported by DPDK. Currently, it does that by looping from 0 to LIST_END which happens to give you the first n features. Now, if we add any new asymmetric feature, LIST_END value would change. Isn't that the very reason why we removed LIST_END from symmetric library and applications?

Yes

> Now coming to what I proposed, the app is supposed to test "n" asymmetric features. LIST_END helps in doing the loops. If we remove LIST_END, then application will not be in a position to do a loop. My suggestion is, we list the types that are supposed to be tested by the app, and let that array be used as feature list.
> 
> PS: Just to reiterate, my proposal is just a local array which would hold DPDK defined RTE enum values for the features that would be tested by this app/function.

I am more concerned by the general case than the test app.
I think a function returning a number is more app-friendly.

> > > > > +               enum rte_crypto_asym_op_type types[] = { 
> 
> > 
> > The problem is in DPDK API. We must not suggest a size for enums.
> 
> [Anoob] So agreed that LIST_END should be removed?

Yes

> > If we really need a size, then it must be explicit and updated in the lib binary
> > (through a function) when the size increases.
> 
> [Anoob] Precisely my thoughts. The loop with LIST_END done in application is not correct. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > > -               for (i = 0; i < RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_LIST_END; i++) {
> > > > > +               enum rte_crypto_asym_op_type types[] = {
> > > > > +                               RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_ENCRYPT,
> > > > > +                               RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_DECRYPT,
> > > > > +                               RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_SIGN,
> > > > > +                               RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_VERIFY,
> > > > > +                               RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_PRIVATE_KEY_GENERATE,
> > > > > +                               RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_PUBLIC_KEY_GENERATE,
> > > > > +                               RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_SHARED_SECRET_COMPUTE,
> > > > > +               };
> > > > > +               for (i = 0; i <= RTE_DIM(types); i++) {
> > > > >                         if (tc.modex.xform_type ==
> > RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_RSA) {
> > > > > -                               if (tc.rsa_data.op_type_flags & (1 << i)) {
> > > > > +                               if (tc.rsa_data.op_type_flags & (1
> > > > > + <<
> > > > > + types[i])) {
> > > > >                                         if (tc.rsa_data.key_exp) {
> > > > >                                                 status = test_cryptodev_asym_op(
> > > > >                                                         &testsuite_params, &tc,
> > > > > -                                                       test_msg, sessionless, i,
> > > > > +                                                       test_msg,
> > > > > + sessionless, types[i],
> > > > >                                                         RTE_RSA_KEY_TYPE_EXP);
> > > > >                                         }
> > > > >                                         if (status)
> > > > >                                                 break;
> > > > > -                                       if (tc.rsa_data.key_qt && (i ==
> > > > > +                                       if (tc.rsa_data.key_qt &&
> > > > > + (types[i] ==
> > > > >                                                         RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_DECRYPT ||
> > > > > -                                                       i == RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_SIGN)) {
> > > > > +                                                       types[i]
> > > > > + ==
> > > > > + RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_SIGN)) {
> > > > >                                                 status = test_cryptodev_asym_op(
> > > > >                                                         &testsuite_params,
> > > > > -                                                       &tc, test_msg, sessionless, i,
> > > > > +                                                       &tc,
> > > > > + test_msg, sessionless, types[i],
> > > > >                                                         RTE_RSA_KET_TYPE_QT);
> > > > >                                         }
> > > > >                                         if (status)
> > > > >
> > > > > This way, application would only use the ones which it is designed
> > > > > to work
> > > > with. For QAT driver changes, we could have an overload if condition
> > > > (if alg == x
> > > > || alg = y || ...) to get the same effect.




  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-12 13:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-31 18:13 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] cryptodev and security ABI improvements Akhil Goyal
2021-07-31 18:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] cryptodev: remove LIST_END enumerators Akhil Goyal
2021-07-31 18:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] cryptodev: promote asym APIs to stable Akhil Goyal
2021-08-30 15:49   ` Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
2021-09-03 15:17     ` Akhil Goyal
2021-09-07 11:42       ` Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
2021-09-07 11:45         ` Akhil Goyal
2021-09-08 12:37           ` Kinsella, Ray
2023-02-02 10:49             ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2023-02-02 11:02               ` Hemant Agrawal
2023-02-14 18:05               ` Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
2021-07-31 18:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] security: hide internal API Akhil Goyal
2021-09-15 15:54   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-07-31 18:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] security: add reserved bitfields Akhil Goyal
2021-09-15 15:55   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-09-15 16:43   ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-07-31 18:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] cryptodev and security ABI improvements Akhil Goyal
2021-10-08 20:45 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/3] cryptodev: remove LIST_END enumerators Akhil Goyal
2021-10-08 20:45   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/3] security: hide internal API Akhil Goyal
2021-10-12  8:50     ` Kinsella, Ray
2021-10-08 20:45   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/3] security: add reserved bitfields Akhil Goyal
2021-10-11  8:31     ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-10-11 16:58       ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2021-10-11 22:15         ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-10-12  8:31           ` Kinsella, Ray
2021-10-12  6:59         ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-10-12  8:53           ` Kinsella, Ray
2021-10-12  8:50     ` [dpdk-dev] " Kinsella, Ray
2021-10-11 10:46   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/3] cryptodev: remove LIST_END enumerators Zhang, Roy Fan
2021-10-12  9:55   ` Kinsella, Ray
2021-10-12 10:19     ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2021-10-12 10:50       ` Anoob Joseph
2021-10-12 11:28         ` Kinsella, Ray
2021-10-12 11:34           ` Anoob Joseph
2021-10-12 11:52             ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-10-12 13:38               ` Anoob Joseph
2021-10-12 13:54                 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2021-10-12 14:18                   ` Anoob Joseph
2021-10-12 14:47                     ` Kinsella, Ray
2021-10-12 15:06                       ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-10-13  5:36                         ` Anoob Joseph
2021-10-13  7:02                           ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-10-13  7:04                             ` Anoob Joseph
2021-10-13  8:39                               ` Kinsella, Ray
2021-10-18  5:22   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] security: hide internal API Akhil Goyal
2021-10-18  5:22     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] security: add reserved bitfields Akhil Goyal
2021-10-18 15:39       ` Akhil Goyal

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=2012129.4fn6nFIri4@thomas \
    --to=thomas@monjalon.net \
    --cc=adwivedi@marvell.com \
    --cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
    --cc=anoobj@marvell.com \
    --cc=asomalap@amd.com \
    --cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
    --cc=ciara.power@intel.com \
    --cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
    --cc=declan.doherty@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=fiona.trahe@intel.com \
    --cc=g.singh@nxp.com \
    --cc=gakhil@marvell.com \
    --cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
    --cc=jianjay.zhou@huawei.com \
    --cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=matan@nvidia.com \
    --cc=mdr@ashroe.eu \
    --cc=pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com \
    --cc=radu.nicolau@intel.com \
    --cc=rnagadheeraj@marvell.com \
    --cc=roy.fan.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=ruifeng.wang@arm.com \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).