From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAA88A2EEB for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 14:53:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA091C1D5; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 14:53:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910DA1C1D2 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 14:53:26 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Oct 2019 05:53:25 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.67,268,1566889200"; d="scan'208";a="222897070" Received: from irsmsx101.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.153]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Oct 2019 05:53:23 -0700 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.164]) by IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.129]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 13:53:23 +0100 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: Akhil Goyal , "'dev@dpdk.org'" , "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" , 'Thomas Monjalon' CC: "Zhang, Roy Fan" , "Doherty, Declan" , 'Anoob Joseph' Thread-Topic: [RFC PATCH 1/9] security: introduce CPU Crypto action type and API Thread-Index: AQHVYm4Y+AedzaNgY0qWMAmu5GwNVqcbQpEAgAArCICAAuADAIAARA4AgAYiKoCAAbQS0IABqquAgAZiqNCAAPA4gIABtviQgAu3KZCAAoImAIAExwxQgAA3zQCAAZ1E0IADFFEAgAZGHRA= Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 12:53:22 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258019197206C@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20190903154046.55992-1-roy.fan.zhang@intel.com> <20190903154046.55992-2-roy.fan.zhang@intel.com> <9F7182E3F746AB4EA17801C148F3C6043369D686@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580191926A17@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580191962CD5@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580191966116@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580191966C23@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258019196A767@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258019196D53D@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258019196F386@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiOWVjZDQ2ZTctZTJhZS00MTdjLThhM2QtY2MwM2Q4ZmY5Nzg5IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoiZHQ2QUpOUTdONkRzWlwvMEJKdm5sQlZhK2hyNFVENzBhdGVcLzh5UEVcL1FyRXBxUFJRZFlvOWt5eUYyeXpDMEd4bSJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.2.0.6 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 1/9] security: introduce CPU Crypto action type and API X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Akhil, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This action type allows the burst of symmetri= c crypto > > > > workload > > > > > > using > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > algorithm, key, and direction being processed= by CPU > > cycles > > > > > > > > > > > synchronously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This flexible action type does not require ex= ternal > > hardware > > > > > > > > > involvement, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > having the crypto workload processed synchron= ously, > > and is > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > > > > performant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than Cryptodev SW PMD due to the saved cycles= on > > removed > > > > > > "async > > > > > > > > > > > mode > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simulation" as well as 3 cacheline access of = the crypto > > ops. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does that mean application will not call the > > > > > > cryptodev_enqueue_burst > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > corresponding dequeue burst. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, instead it just call > > rte_security_process_cpu_crypto_bulk(...) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be a new API something like process_pa= ckets and > > it > > > > will > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > crypto processed packets while returning from the= API? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, though the plan is that API will operate on = raw data > > buffers, > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > mbufs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still do not understand why we cannot do with= the > > > > conventional > > > > > > > > > crypto lib > > > > > > > > > > > > > only. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can understand, you are not doing a= ny protocol > > > > > > processing > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > > > > value add > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To the crypto processing. IMO, you just need a > > synchronous > > > > > > crypto > > > > > > > > > > > processing > > > > > > > > > > > > > API which > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can be defined in cryptodev, you don't need to = re-create a > > > > crypto > > > > > > > > > session > > > > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > > > the name of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Security session in the driver just to do a syn= chronous > > > > processing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose your question is why not to have > > > > > > > > > > > > > rte_crypot_process_cpu_crypto_bulk(...) instead? > > > > > > > > > > > > > The main reason is that would require disruptive = changes in > > > > existing > > > > > > > > > > > cryptodev > > > > > > > > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > > > > > (would cause ABI/API breakage). > > > > > > > > > > > > > Session for RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_CPU_CRYPTO > > need > > > > > > some > > > > > > > > > extra > > > > > > > > > > > > > information > > > > > > > > > > > > > that normal crypto_sym_xform doesn't contain > > > > > > > > > > > > > (cipher offset from the start of the buffer, migh= t be > > something > > > > extra > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > > future). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cipher offset will be part of rte_crypto_op. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fill/read (+ alloc/free) is one of the main things th= at slowdown > > > > current > > > > > > > > > crypto-op > > > > > > > > > > > approach. > > > > > > > > > > > That's why the general idea - have all data that woul= dn't change > > > > from > > > > > > packet > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > packet > > > > > > > > > > > included into the session and setup it once at sessio= n_init(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that you cannot use crypto-op. > > > > > > > > > > You can have the new API in crypto. > > > > > > > > > > As per the current patch, you only need cipher_offset w= hich you > > can > > > > have > > > > > > it as > > > > > > > > > a parameter until > > > > > > > > > > You get it approved in the crypto xform. I believe it w= ill be > > beneficial > > > > in > > > > > > case of > > > > > > > > > other crypto cases as well. > > > > > > > > > > We can have cipher offset at both places(crypto-op and > > > > cipher_xform). It > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > give flexibility to the user to > > > > > > > > > > override it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After having another thought on your proposal: > > > > > > > > > Probably we can introduce new rte_crypto_sym_xform_types = for > > CPU > > > > > > related > > > > > > > > > stuff here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also thought of adding new xforms, but that wont serve th= e purpose > > for > > > > > > may be all the cases. > > > > > > > > You would be needing all information currently available in= the > > current > > > > > > xforms. > > > > > > > > So if you are adding new fields in the new xform, the size = will be more > > > > than > > > > > > that of the union of xforms. > > > > > > > > ABI breakage would still be there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you think a valid compression of the AEAD xform can be d= one, then > > > > that > > > > > > can be done for each of the > > > > > > > > Xforms and we can have a solution to this issue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that we can re-use iv.offset for our purposes (for cr= ypto offset). > > > > > > > So for now we can make that path work without any ABI breakag= e. > > > > > > > Fan, please feel free to correct me here, if I missed somethi= ng. > > > > > > > If in future we would need to add some extra information it m= ight > > > > > > > require ABI breakage, though by now I don't envision anything > > particular to > > > > > > add. > > > > > > > Anyway, if there is no objection to go that way, we can try t= o make > > > > > > > these changes for v2. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, after looking at it more deeply it appears not that e= asy as I > > thought > > > > it > > > > > > would be :) > > > > > > Below is a very draft version of proposed API additions. > > > > > > I think it avoids ABI breakages right now and provides enough f= lexibility > > for > > > > > > future extensions (if any). > > > > > > For now, it doesn't address your comments about naming conventi= ons > > > > (_CPU_ > > > > > > vs _SYNC_) , etc. > > > > > > but I suppose is comprehensive enough to provide a main idea be= yond it. > > > > > > Akhil and other interested parties, please try to review and pr= ovide > > feedback > > > > > > ASAP, > > > > > > as related changes would take some time and we still like to hi= t 19.11 > > > > deadline. > > > > > > Konstantin > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_sym.h > > > > > > b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_sym.h > > > > > > index bc8da2466..c03069e23 100644 > > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_sym.h > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_sym.h > > > > > > @@ -103,6 +103,9 @@ rte_crypto_cipher_operation_strings[]; > > > > > > * > > > > > > * This structure contains data relating to Cipher (Encryption= and > > Decryption) > > > > > > * use to create a session. > > > > > > + * Actually I was wrong saying that we don't have free space i= nside > > xforms. > > > > > > + * Making key struct packed (see below) allow us to regain 6B = that could > > be > > > > > > + * used for future extensions. > > > > > > */ > > > > > > struct rte_crypto_cipher_xform { > > > > > > enum rte_crypto_cipher_operation op; > > > > > > @@ -116,7 +119,25 @@ struct rte_crypto_cipher_xform { > > > > > > struct { > > > > > > const uint8_t *data; /**< pointer to key dat= a */ > > > > > > uint16_t length; /**< key length in byte= s */ > > > > > > - } key; > > > > > > + } __attribute__((__packed__)) key; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + /** > > > > > > + * offset for cipher to start within user provided dat= a buffer. > > > > > > + * Fan suggested another (and less space consuming way)= - > > > > > > + * reuse iv.offset space below, by changing: > > > > > > + * struct {uint16_t offset, length;} iv; > > > > > > + * to uunamed union: > > > > > > + * union { > > > > > > + * struct {uint16_t offset, length;} iv; > > > > > > + * struct {uint16_t iv_len, crypto_offset} cpu_cry= pto_param; > > > > > > + * }; > > > > > > + * Both approaches seems ok to me in general. > > > > > > > > > > No strong opinions here. OK with this one. > > > > > > > > > > > + * Comments/suggestions are welcome. > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > + uint16_t offset; > > > > > > > > After another thought - it is probably a bit better to have offset = as a separate > > > > field. > > > > In that case we can use the same xforms to create both type of sess= ions. > > > ok > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > + uint8_t reserved1[4]; > > > > > > + > > > > > > /**< Cipher key > > > > > > * > > > > > > * For the RTE_CRYPTO_CIPHER_AES_F8 mode of operation, > > key.data > > > > will > > > > > > @@ -284,7 +305,7 @@ struct rte_crypto_auth_xform { > > > > > > struct { > > > > > > const uint8_t *data; /**< pointer to key dat= a */ > > > > > > uint16_t length; /**< key length in byte= s */ > > > > > > - } key; > > > > > > + } __attribute__((__packed__)) key; > > > > > > /**< Authentication key data. > > > > > > * The authentication key length MUST be less than or e= qual to the > > > > > > * block size of the algorithm. It is the callers respo= nsibility to > > > > > > @@ -292,6 +313,8 @@ struct rte_crypto_auth_xform { > > > > > > * (for example RFC 2104, FIPS 198a). > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > > > > > + uint8_t reserved1[6]; > > > > > > + > > > > > > struct { > > > > > > uint16_t offset; > > > > > > /**< Starting point for Initialisation Vector o= r Counter, > > > > > > @@ -376,7 +399,12 @@ struct rte_crypto_aead_xform { > > > > > > struct { > > > > > > const uint8_t *data; /**< pointer to key dat= a */ > > > > > > uint16_t length; /**< key length in byte= s */ > > > > > > - } key; > > > > > > + } __attribute__((__packed__)) key; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + /** offset for cipher to start within data buffer */ > > > > > > + uint16_t cipher_offset; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + uint8_t reserved1[4]; > > > > > > > > > > > > struct { > > > > > > uint16_t offset; > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h > > > > > > b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h > > > > > > index e175b838c..c0c7bfed7 100644 > > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h > > > > > > @@ -1272,6 +1272,101 @@ void * > > > > > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session_get_user_data( > > > > > > struct rte_cryptodev_sy= m_session *sess); > > > > > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > + * After several thoughts decided not to try to squeeze CPU_CR= YPTO > > > > > > + * into existing rte_crypto_sym_session structure/API, but ins= tead > > > > > > + * introduce an extentsion to it via new fully opaque > > > > > > + * struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session and additional related AP= I. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What all things do we need to squeeze? > > > > > In this proposal I do not see the new struct cpu_sym_session def= ined here. > > > > > > > > The plan is to have it totally opaque to the user, i.e. just: > > > > struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session; > > > > in public header files. > > > > > > > > > I believe you will have same lib API/struct for cpu_sym_session = and > > > > sym_session. > > > > > > > > I thought about such way, but there are few things that looks clums= y to me: > > > > 1. Right now there is no 'type' (or so) field inside rte_cryptodev_= sym_session, > > > > so it is not possible to easy distinguish what session do you have:= lksd_sym or > > > > cpu_sym. > > > > In theory, there is a hole of 4B inside rte_cryptodev_sym_session, = so we can > > add > > > > some extra field > > > > here, but in that case we wouldn't be able to use the same xform f= or both > > > > lksd_sym or cpu_sym > > > > (which seems really plausible thing for me). > > > > 2. Majority of rte_cryptodev_sym_session fields I think are unnece= ssary for > > > > rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session: > > > > sess_data[], opaque_data, user_data, nb_drivers. > > > > All that consumes space, that could be used somewhere else instead. > > > > 3. I am a bit reluctant to touch existing rte_cryptodev API - to av= oid any > > > > breakages I can't foresee right now. > > > > From other side - if we'll add new functions/structs for cpu_sym_se= ssion we > > can > > > > mark it > > > > and keep it for some time as experimental, so further changes (if n= eeded) > > would > > > > still be possible. > > > > > > > > > > OK let us assume that you have a separate structure. But I have a few= queries: > > > 1. how can multiple drivers use a same session > > > > As a short answer: they can't. > > It is pretty much the same approach as with rte_security - each device = needs to > > create/init its own session. > > So upper layer would need to maintain its own array (or so) for such ca= se. > > Though the question is why would you like to have same session over mul= tiple > > SW backed devices? > > As it would be anyway just a synchronous function call that will be exe= cuted on > > the same cpu. >=20 > I may have single FAT tunnel which may be distributed over multiple > Cores, and each core is affined to a different SW device. If it is pure SW, then we don't need multiple devices for such scenario. Device in that case is pure abstraction that we can skip. > So a single session may be accessed by multiple devices. >=20 > One more example would be depending on packet sizes, I may switch between > HW/SW PMDs with the same session. Sure, but then we'll have multiple sessions. BTW, we have same thing now - these private session pointers are just store= d inside the same rte_crypto_sym_session. And if user wants to support this model, he would also need to store pair for each HW device anyway. >=20 > > > > > 2. Can somebody use the scheduler pmd for scheduling the different ty= pe of > > payloads for the same session? > > > > In theory yes. > > Though for that scheduler pmd should have inside it's > > rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session an array of pointers to > > the underlying devices sessions. > > > > > > > > With your proposal the APIs would be very specific to your use case o= nly. > > > > Yes in some way. > > I consider that API specific for SW backed crypto PMDs. > > I can hardly see how any 'real HW' PMDs (lksd-none, lksd-proto) will be= nefit > > from it. > > Current crypto-op API is very much HW oriented. > > Which is ok, that's for it was intended for, but I think we also need o= ne that > > would be designed > > for SW backed implementation in mind. >=20 > We may re-use your API for HW PMDs as well which do not have requirement = of > Crypto-op/mbuf etc. > The return type of your new process API may have a status which say 'proc= essed' > Or can be say 'enqueued'. So if it is 'enqueued', we may have a new API = for raw > Bufs dequeue as well. >=20 > This requirement can be for any hardware PMDs like QAT as well. I don't think it is a good idea to extend this API for async (lookaside) de= vices. You'll need to: - provide dev_id and queue_id for each process(enqueue) and dequeuer opera= tion. - provide IOVA for all buffers passing to that function (data buffers, dig= est, IV, aad). - On dequeue provide some way to associate dequed data and digest buffers = with crypto-session that was used (and probably with mbuf). =20 So most likely we'll end up with another just version of our current crypt= o-op structure. =20 If you'd like to get rid of mbufs dependency within current crypto-op API t= hat understandable, but I don't think we should have same API for both sync (CPU) and async (lo= okaside) cases.=20 It doesn't seem feasible at all and voids whole purpose of that patch. > That is why a dev-ops would be a better option. >=20 > > > > > When you would add more functionality to this sync API/struct, it wil= l end up > > being the same API/struct. > > > > > > Let us see how close/ far we are from the existing APIs when the act= ual > > implementation is done. > > > > > > > > I am not sure if that would be needed. > > > > > It would be internal to the driver that if synchronous processing= is > > > > supported(from feature flag) and > > > > > Have relevant fields in xform(the newly added ones which are pack= ed as > > per > > > > your suggestions) set, > > > > > It will create that type of session. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + * Main points: > > > > > > + * - Current crypto-dev API is reasonably mature and it is des= irable > > > > > > + * to keep it unchanged (API/ABI stability). From other side= , this > > > > > > + * new sync API is new one and probably would require extra = changes. > > > > > > + * Having it as a new one allows to mark it as experimental,= without > > > > > > + * affecting existing one. > > > > > > + * - Fully opaque cpu_sym_session structure gives more flexibi= lity > > > > > > + * to the PMD writers and again allows to avoid ABI breakage= s in future. > > > > > > + * - process() function per set of xforms > > > > > > + * allows to expose different process() functions for differ= ent > > > > > > + * xform combinations. PMD writer can decide, does he wants = to > > > > > > + * push all supported algorithms into one process() function= , > > > > > > + * or spread it across several ones. > > > > > > + * I.E. More flexibility for PMD writer. > > > > > > > > > > Which process function should be chosen is internal to PMD, how w= ould > > that > > > > info > > > > > be visible to the application or the library. These will get stor= ed in the > > session > > > > private > > > > > data. It would be upto the PMD writer, to store the per session p= rocess > > > > function in > > > > > the session private data. > > > > > > > > > > Process function would be a dev ops just like enc/deq operations = and it > > should > > > > call > > > > > The respective process API stored in the session private data. > > > > > > > > That model (via devops) is possible, but has several drawbacks from= my > > > > perspective: > > > > > > > > 1. It means we'll need to pass dev_id as a parameter to process() f= unction. > > > > Though in fact dev_id is not a relevant information for us here > > > > (all we need is pointer to the session and pointer to the fuction t= o call) > > > > and I tried to avoid using it in data-path functions for that API. > > > > > > You have a single vdev, but someone may have multiple vdevs for each = thread, > > or may > > > Have same dev with multiple queues for each core. > > > > That's fine. As I said above it is a SW backed implementation. > > Each session has to be a separate entity that contains all necessary in= formation > > (keys, alg/mode info, etc.) to process input buffers. > > Plus we need the actual function pointer to call. > > I just don't see what for we need a dev_id in that situation. >=20 > To iterate the session private data in the session. >=20 > > Again, here we don't need care about queues and their pinning to cores. > > If let say someone would like to process buffers from the same IPsec SA= on 2 > > different cores in parallel, he can just create 2 sessions for the same= xform, > > give one to thread #1 and second to thread #2. > > After that both threads are free to call process(this_thread_ses, ...) = at will. >=20 > Say you have a 16core device to handle 100G of traffic on a single tunnel= . > Will we make 16 sessions with same parameters? Absolutely same question we can ask for current crypto-op API. You have lookaside crypto-dev with 16 HW queues, each queue is serviced by = different CPU. For the same SA, do you need a separate session per queue, or is it ok to r= euse current one? AFAIK, right now this is a grey area not clearly defined. For crypto-devs I am aware - user can reuse the same session (as PMD uses i= t read-only). But again, right now I think it is not clearly defined and is implementatio= n specific. >=20 > > > > > > > > > 2. As you pointed in that case it will be just one process() functi= on per device. > > > > So if PMD would like to have several process() functions for differ= ent type of > > > > sessions > > > > (let say one per alg) first thing it has to do inside it's process(= ) - read session > > data > > > > and > > > > based on that, do a jump/call to particular internal sub-routine. > > > > Something like: > > > > driver_id =3D get_pmd_driver_id(); > > > > priv_ses =3D ses->sess_data[driver_id]; > > > > Then either: > > > > switch(priv_sess->alg) {case XXX: process_XXX(priv_sess, ...);break= ;...} > > > > OR > > > > priv_ses->process(priv_sess, ...); > > > > > > > > to select and call the proper function. > > > > Looks like totally unnecessary overhead to me. > > > > Though if we'll have ability to query/extract some sort session_ops= based on > > the > > > > xform - > > > > we can avoid this extra de-refererence+jump/call thing. > > > > > > What is the issue in the priv_ses->process(); approach? > > > > Nothing at all. > > What I am saying that schema with dev_ops > > dev[dev_id]->dev_ops.process(ses->priv_ses[driver_id], ...) > > | > > |-> priv_ses->process(...) > > > > Has bigger overhead then just: > > process(ses,...); > > > > So what for to introduce extra-level of indirection here? >=20 > Explained above. >=20 > > > > > I don't understand what are you saving by not doing this. > > > In any case you would need to identify which session correspond to wh= ich > > process(). > > > > Yes, sure, but I think we can make user to store information that relat= ionship, > > in a way he likes: store process() pointer for each session, or group s= essions > > that share the same process() somehow, or... >=20 > So whatever relationship that user will make and store will make its life= complicated. > If we can hide that information in the driver, then what is the issue in = that and user > Will not need to worry. He would just call the process() and driver will = choose which > Process need to be called. Driver can do that at config/init time. Then at run-time we can avoid that choice at all and call already chosen fu= nction. >=20 > I think we should have a POC around this and see the difference in the cy= cle count. > IMO it would be negligible and we would end up making a generic API set w= hich > can be used by others as well. >=20 > > > > > For that you would be doing it somewhere in your data path. > > > > Why at data-path? > > Only once at session creation/initialization time. > > Or might be even once per group of sessions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure if you would need a new session init API for this a= s nothing > > would > > > > be visible to > > > > > the app or lib. > > > > > > > > > > > + * - Not storing process() pointer inside the session - > > > > > > + * Allows user to choose does he want to store a process() p= ointer > > > > > > + * per session, or per group of sessions for that device tha= t share > > > > > > + * the same input xforms. I.E. extra flexibility for the use= r, > > > > > > + * plus allows us to keep cpu_sym_session totally opaque, se= e above. > > > > > > > > > > If multiple sessions need to be processed via the same process fu= nction, > > > > > PMD would save the same process in all the sessions, I don't thin= k there > > would > > > > > be any perf overhead with that. > > > > > > > > I think it would, see above. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + * Sketched usage model: > > > > > > + * .... > > > > > > + * /* control path, alloc/init session */ > > > > > > + * int32_t sz =3D rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_size(dev_id, &xfo= rm); > > > > > > + * struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *ses =3D user_alloc(..., = sz); > > > > > > + * rte_crypto_cpu_sym_process_t process =3D > > > > > > + * rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_func(dev_id, &xform); > > > > > > + * rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_init(dev_id, ses, &xform); > > > > > > + * ... > > > > > > + * /* data-path*/ > > > > > > + * process(ses, ....); > > > > > > + * .... > > > > > > + * /* control path, termiante/free session */ > > > > > > + * rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_fini(dev_id, ses); > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > + > > > > > > +/** > > > > > > + * vector structure, contains pointer to vector array and the = length > > > > > > + * of the array > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > +struct rte_crypto_vec { > > > > > > + struct iovec *vec; > > > > > > + uint32_t num; > > > > > > +}; > > > > > > + > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > + * Data-path bulk process crypto function. > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > +typedef void (*rte_crypto_cpu_sym_process_t)( > > > > > > + struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *sess, > > > > > > + struct rte_crypto_vec buf[], void *iv[], void *= aad[], > > > > > > + void *digest[], int status[], uint32_t num); > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > + * for given device return process function specific to input = xforms > > > > > > + * on error - return NULL and set rte_errno value. > > > > > > + * Note that for same input xfroms for the same device should = return > > > > > > + * the same process function. > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > +__rte_experimental > > > > > > +rte_crypto_cpu_sym_process_t > > > > > > +rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_func(uint8_t dev_id, > > > > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xfor= ms); > > > > > > + > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > + * Return required session size in bytes for given set of xfor= ms. > > > > > > + * if xforms =3D=3D NULL, then return the max possible session= size, > > > > > > + * that would fit session for any supported by the device algo= rithm. > > > > > > + * if CPU mode is not supported at all, or requeted in xform > > > > > > + * algorithm is not supported, then return -ENOTSUP. > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > +__rte_experimental > > > > > > +int > > > > > > +rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_size(uint8_t dev_id, > > > > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xfor= ms); > > > > > > + > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > + * Initialize session. > > > > > > + * It is caller responsibility to allocate enough space for it= . > > > > > > + * See rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_size above. > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > +__rte_experimental > > > > > > +int rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_init(uint8_t dev_id, > > > > > > + struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *sess= , > > > > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xfor= ms); > > > > > > + > > > > > > +__rte_experimental > > > > > > +void > > > > > > +rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_fini(uint8_t dev_id, > > > > > > + struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *sess= ); > > > > > > + > > > > > > + > > > > > > #ifdef __cplusplus > > > > > > } > > > > > > #endif > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_pmd.h > > > > > > b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_pmd.h > > > > > > index defe05ea0..ed7e63fab 100644 > > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_pmd.h > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_pmd.h > > > > > > @@ -310,6 +310,20 @@ typedef void > > > > (*cryptodev_sym_free_session_t)(struct > > > > > > rte_cryptodev *dev, > > > > > > typedef void (*cryptodev_asym_free_session_t)(struct rte_crypt= odev > > *dev, > > > > > > struct rte_cryptodev_asym_session *sess); > > > > > > > > > > > > +typedef int (*cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_size_t) (struct rte_cr= yptodev > > > > *dev, > > > > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xfor= ms); > > > > > > + > > > > > > +typedef int (*cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_init_t) (struct rte_cr= yptodev > > > > *dev, > > > > > > + struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *sess= , > > > > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xfor= ms); > > > > > > + > > > > > > +typedef void (*cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_fini_t) (struct rte_c= ryptodev > > > > *dev, > > > > > > + struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *sess= ); > > > > > > + > > > > > > +typedef rte_crypto_cpu_sym_process_t > > > > (*cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_func_t) > > > > > > ( > > > > > > + struct rte_cryptodev *dev, > > > > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xfor= ms); > > > > > > + > > > > > > /** Crypto device operations function pointer table */ > > > > > > struct rte_cryptodev_ops { > > > > > > cryptodev_configure_t dev_configure; /**< Configure = device. */ > > > > > > @@ -343,6 +357,11 @@ struct rte_cryptodev_ops { > > > > > > /**< Clear a Crypto sessions private data. */ > > > > > > cryptodev_asym_free_session_t asym_session_clear; > > > > > > /**< Clear a Crypto sessions private data. */ > > > > > > + > > > > > > + cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_size_t sym_cpu_session_get_si= ze; > > > > > > + cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_func_t sym_cpu_session_get_fu= nc; > > > > > > + cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_init_t sym_cpu_session_init; > > > > > > + cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_fini_t sym_cpu_session_fini; > > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >