Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] crypto/qat: fix segmentation fault in QAT PMD

["Trahe, Fiona" <fiona.trahe@intel.com>]

Hi Bernard, Konstantin,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 1:10 PM
> To: Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Trahe, Fiona
> <fiona.trahe@intel.com>; akhil.goyal@nxp.com
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] crypto/qat: fix segmentation fault in QAT PMD
> 
> Hi Bernard,
> 
> >
> > While running the IPsec unit test program the following
> > segmentation fault is occurring:
> >
> > Thread 1 "test" received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> > 0x0000000000beaece in qat_sym_build_request(in_op=0x0,
> > out_msg=0x100450580 "", op_cookie=0x101c6fd80, qat_dev_gen=QAT_GEN1)
> > at /root/dpdk_ipsec_master-1/drivers/crypto/qat/qat_sym.c:165
> > 165  if (unlikely(op->type != RTE_CRYPTO_OP_TYPE_SYMMETRIC)) {
> >
> > Fixes: c0f87eb5252b ("cryptodev: change burst API to be crypto op oriented")
> > Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/crypto/qat/qat_sym.c | 6 ++++++
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/crypto/qat/qat_sym.c b/drivers/crypto/qat/qat_sym.c
> > index 8801ca5..4a7d11e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/crypto/qat/qat_sym.c
> > +++ b/drivers/crypto/qat/qat_sym.c
> > @@ -162,6 +162,12 @@ qat_sym_build_request(void *in_op, uint8_t *out_msg,
> >  	struct qat_sym_op_cookie *cookie =
> >  				(struct qat_sym_op_cookie *)op_cookie;
> >
> > +	if (op == NULL) {
> > +		QAT_DP_LOG(ERR, "QAT PMD only supports symmetric crypto "
> > +				"operation requests, op (%p) is NULL", op);
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	if (unlikely(op->type != RTE_CRYPTO_OP_TYPE_SYMMETRIC)) {
> >  		QAT_DP_LOG(ERR, "QAT PMD only supports symmetric crypto "
> >  				"operation requests, op (%p) is not a "
> 
> This is crypto-dev enqueue data-path, if I am not mistaken.
> I think in that case it is caller responsibility to make sure that ops[] contain valid crypto-ops
> (as in majority of other data-path functions).
> Suppose the main question here - why ipsec UT passes NULL as crypto-op here?
> Konstantin
[Fiona] Agree with Konstantin - it's the data-path - we expect a valid op ptr.
Can the real issue be related to the recent addition of asymmetric QAT PMD?
Not all QAT PMDs support symmetric crypto now.
Is IPSec unit test finding a QAT asymm PMD and not checking it's capabilities 
or checking but not handling the result well and following a path that passes a NULL op to it?