Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] security: update session create API

[Lukasz Wojciechowski <l.wojciechow@partner.samsung.com>]

W dniu 14.10.2020 o 21:00, Akhil Goyal pisze:
> Hi Lukasz,
>
>> Hi Akhil,
>>> -#define SECURITY_TEST_MEMPOOL_NAME "SecurityTestsMempoolName"
>>> +#define SECURITY_TEST_MEMPOOL_NAME "SecurityTestMp"
>>> +#define SECURITY_TEST_PRIV_MEMPOOL_NAME "SecurityTestPrivMp"
>>>    #define SECURITY_TEST_MEMPOOL_SIZE 15
>>>    #define SECURITY_TEST_SESSION_OBJECT_SIZE sizeof(struct
>> rte_security_session)
>>> @@ -545,6 +548,22 @@ testsuite_setup(void)
>>>    			SOCKET_ID_ANY, 0);
>>>    	TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(ts_params->session_mpool,
>>>    			"Cannot create mempool %s\n",
>> rte_strerror(rte_errno));
>>> +
>>> +	ts_params->session_priv_mpool = rte_mempool_create(
>>> +			SECURITY_TEST_PRIV_MEMPOOL_NAME,
>>> +			SECURITY_TEST_MEMPOOL_SIZE,
>>> +			rte_security_session_get_size(&unittest_params.ctx),
>> Call to rte_security_session_get_size() will cause a mockup function
>> mock_session_get_size() to be called, which will return 0.
>> Why do you call this function instead of defining some value for private
>> mempool element size?
> Fixed in v3
>
>>> +			0, 0, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL,
>>> +			SOCKET_ID_ANY, 0);
>>> +	if (ts_params->session_priv_mpool == NULL) {
>>> +		printf("TestCase %s() line %d failed (null): "
>>> +				"Cannot create priv mempool %s\n",
>>> +				__func__, __LINE__, rte_strerror(rte_errno));
>> Instead of printf() use RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL,...). All other messages are
>> printed this way. It allows control of error messages if required.
> Fixed in v3, should be USER1 instead of EAL though.
Can you explain me why, there should be USER1?
All other errors are printed with EAL tag.
>
>>> +		rte_mempool_free(ts_params->session_mpool);
>>> +		ts_params->session_mpool = NULL;
>>> +		return TEST_FAILED;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>>    	return TEST_SUCCESS;
>>>    }
>>>
>>> @@ -559,6 +578,10 @@ testsuite_teardown(void)
>>>    		rte_mempool_free(ts_params->session_mpool);
>>>    		ts_params->session_mpool = NULL;
>>>    	}
>>> +	if (ts_params->session_priv_mpool) {
>>> +		rte_mempool_free(ts_params->session_priv_mpool);
>>> +		ts_params->session_priv_mpool = NULL;
>>> +	}
>>>    }
>>>
>>>    /**
>>> @@ -659,7 +682,8 @@ ut_setup_with_session(void)
>>>    	mock_session_create_exp.ret = 0;
>>>
>>>    	sess = rte_security_session_create(&ut_params->ctx, &ut_params-
>>> conf,
>>> -			ts_params->session_mpool);
>>> +			ts_params->session_mpool,
>>> +			ts_params->session_priv_mpool);
>>>
>> 	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_FUNCTION_CALL_NOT_NULL(rte_security_sessio
>> n_create,
>>>    			sess);
>>>    	TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(sess, mock_session_create_exp.sess,
>>> @@ -701,7 +725,8 @@ test_session_create_inv_context(void)
>>>    	struct rte_security_session *sess;
>>>
>>>    	sess = rte_security_session_create(NULL, &ut_params->conf,
>>> -			ts_params->session_mpool);
>>> +			ts_params->session_mpool,
>>> +			ts_params->session_priv_mpool);
>>>
>> 	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_FUNCTION_CALL_RET(rte_security_session_creat
>> e,
>>>    			sess, NULL, "%p");
>>>    	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_CALLS(mock_session_create_exp, 0);
>>> @@ -725,7 +750,8 @@ test_session_create_inv_context_ops(void)
>>>    	ut_params->ctx.ops = NULL;
>>>
>>>    	sess = rte_security_session_create(&ut_params->ctx, &ut_params-
>>> conf,
>>> -			ts_params->session_mpool);
>>> +			ts_params->session_mpool,
>>> +			ts_params->session_priv_mpool);
>>>
>> 	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_FUNCTION_CALL_RET(rte_security_session_creat
>> e,
>>>    			sess, NULL, "%p");
>>>    	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_CALLS(mock_session_create_exp, 0);
>>> @@ -749,7 +775,8 @@ test_session_create_inv_context_ops_fun(void)
>>>    	ut_params->ctx.ops = &empty_ops;
>>>
>>>    	sess = rte_security_session_create(&ut_params->ctx, &ut_params-
>>> conf,
>>> -			ts_params->session_mpool);
>>> +			ts_params->session_mpool,
>>> +			ts_params->session_priv_mpool);
>>>
>> 	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_FUNCTION_CALL_RET(rte_security_session_creat
>> e,
>>>    			sess, NULL, "%p");
>>>    	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_CALLS(mock_session_create_exp, 0);
>>> @@ -770,7 +797,8 @@ test_session_create_inv_configuration(void)
>>>    	struct rte_security_session *sess;
>>>
>>>    	sess = rte_security_session_create(&ut_params->ctx, NULL,
>>> -			ts_params->session_mpool);
>>> +			ts_params->session_mpool,
>>> +			ts_params->session_priv_mpool);
>>>
>> 	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_FUNCTION_CALL_RET(rte_security_session_creat
>> e,
>>>    			sess, NULL, "%p");
>>>    	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_CALLS(mock_session_create_exp, 0);
>>> @@ -781,7 +809,7 @@ test_session_create_inv_configuration(void)
>>>    }
>>>
>>>    /**
>>> - * Test execution of rte_security_session_create with NULL mp parameter
>>> + * Test execution of rte_security_session_create with NULL mempools
>>>     */
>>>    static int
>>>    test_session_create_inv_mempool(void)
>>> @@ -790,7 +818,7 @@ test_session_create_inv_mempool(void)
>>>    	struct rte_security_session *sess;
>>>
>>>    	sess = rte_security_session_create(&ut_params->ctx, &ut_params-
>>> conf,
>>> -			NULL);
>>> +			NULL, NULL);
>> It would be best to add a new testcase for verification of passing NULL
>> private mempool.
>> If you pass NULL as the primary mempool as in this testcase, the
>> verification of priv mempool (rte_securitry.c:37) won't ever happen
>> because rte_security_session_create() will return in line 36.
> Added a new test. However that was really unnecessary and was an overkill
> To add a new case for so many negative cases.
>
> Please have a look at v3 and ack it if no further comments.
>
> Regards,
> Akhil
>
-- 
Lukasz Wojciechowski
Principal Software Engineer

Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
Office +48 22 377 88 25
l.wojciechow@partner.samsung.com