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

["Iremonger, Bernard" <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>]

Hi Fiona,

<snip>

> > 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?

Self NAK, issue found in test_ipsec code.

Regards,

Bernard.