Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix not working inline ipsec modes

["Drost, MariuszX" <mariuszx.drost@intel.com>]

Hi,

About your comments:

1) I used macros around sa->flags where it was needed. Not all checks for that set of flags use information if it is transport mode. As for macro WITHOUT_TRANSPORT_VERSION, it was set only for checks that required information from set of flags without taking into account new transport flags -> I can set it in more places (like initialization stage), but I do not see a point of that, besides being uniform.

2) WITHOUT_TRANSPORT_VERSION is a macro which masks sa->flags as they were before change. It cuts newly proposed flags for transport mode, so behavior of switches, where such flags were used before as variable, is unchanged. I will provide a comment to the macro.

I will provide patch as soon as possible (probably tomorrow).

Kind regards,
Mariusz Drost.

-----Original Message-----
From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.goyal@nxp.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 3:15 PM
To: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; Drost, MariuszX <mariuszx.drost@intel.com>; Nicolau, Radu <radu.nicolau@intel.com>; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix not working inline ipsec modes

Hi Marius,

Could you please send the updated patch soon, so that they can be applied before RC1.

Thanks,
Akhil

> 
> Hi Marius,
> 
> 
> > Application ipsec-secgw is not working for IPv4 transport mode and 
> > for
> > IPv6 both transport and tunnel mode.
> >
> > IPv6 tunnel mode is not working due to wrongly assigned fields of 
> > security association patterns, as it was IPv4, during creation of 
> > inline crypto session.
> >
> > IPv6 and IPv4 transport mode is iterating through security 
> > capabilities until it reaches tunnel, which causes session to be 
> > created as tunnel, instead of transport. Another issue, is that 
> > config file does not provide source and destination ip addresses for 
> > transport mode, which are required by NIC to perform inline crypto. 
> > It uses default addresses stored in security association (all 
> > zeroes), which causes dropped packages.
> >
> > To fix that, reorganization of code in create_session() is needed, 
> > to behave appropriately to given protocol (IPv6/IPv4). Change in 
> > iteration through security capabilities is also required, to check 
> > for expected mode (not only tunnel).
> >
> > For lack of addresses issue, some resolving mechanism is needed.
> > Approach is to store addresses in security association, as it is for 
> > tunnel mode. Difference is that they are obtained from sp rules, 
> > instead of config file. To do that, sp[4/6]_spi_present() function 
> > is used to find addresses based on spi value, and then stored in 
> > corresponding sa rule. This approach assumes, that every sp rule for 
> > inline crypto have valid addresses, as well as range of addresses is 
> > not supported.
> >
> > New flags for ipsec_sa structure are required to distinguish between
> > IPv4 and IPv6 transport modes. Because of that, there is need to 
> > change all checks done on these flags, so they work as expected.
> >
> > Fixes: ec17993a145a ("examples/ipsec-secgw: support security 
> > offload")
> > Fixes: 9a0752f498d2 ("net/ixgbe: enable inline IPsec")
> >
> This is a very well written description. Thanks. This helps in review of the patch.
> 
> I have a few small comments, rest all is fine.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Mariusz Drost <mariuszx.drost@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  examples/ipsec-secgw/esp.c   |  12 +--
> >  examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec.c |  19 +++--  
> > examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec.h |  21 +++++-
> >  examples/ipsec-secgw/sa.c    | 142 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >  examples/ipsec-secgw/sp4.c   |  24 +++++-
> >  examples/ipsec-secgw/sp6.c   |  42 ++++++++++-
> >  6 files changed, 205 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/esp.c b/examples/ipsec-secgw/esp.c 
> > index f11d095ba..764e08dcf 100644
> > --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/esp.c
> > +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/esp.c
> > @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ esp_inbound_post(struct rte_mbuf *m, struct 
> > ipsec_sa *sa,
> >  		}
> >  	}
> >
> > -	if (unlikely(sa->flags == TRANSPORT)) {
> > +	if (unlikely(IS_TRANSPORT(sa->flags))) {
> >  		ip = rte_pktmbuf_mtod(m, struct ip *);
> >  		ip4 = (struct ip *)rte_pktmbuf_adj(m,
> >  				sizeof(struct rte_esp_hdr) + sa->iv_len); @@ -233,13 +233,13 @@ 
> > esp_outbound(struct rte_mbuf *m, struct ipsec_sa *sa,
> >
> >  	ip4 = rte_pktmbuf_mtod(m, struct ip *);
> >  	if (likely(ip4->ip_v == IPVERSION)) {
> > -		if (unlikely(sa->flags == TRANSPORT)) {
> > +		if (unlikely(IS_TRANSPORT(sa->flags))) {
> >  			ip_hdr_len = ip4->ip_hl * 4;
> >  			nlp = ip4->ip_p;
> >  		} else
> >  			nlp = IPPROTO_IPIP;
> >  	} else if (ip4->ip_v == IP6_VERSION) {
> > -		if (unlikely(sa->flags == TRANSPORT)) {
> > +		if (unlikely(IS_TRANSPORT(sa->flags))) {
> >  			/* XXX No option headers supported */
> >  			ip_hdr_len = sizeof(struct ip6_hdr);
> >  			ip6 = (struct ip6_hdr *)ip4;
> > @@ -258,13 +258,13 @@ esp_outbound(struct rte_mbuf *m, struct 
> > ipsec_sa *sa,
> >  	pad_len = pad_payload_len + ip_hdr_len - rte_pktmbuf_pkt_len(m);
> >
> >  	RTE_ASSERT(sa->flags == IP4_TUNNEL || sa->flags == IP6_TUNNEL ||
> > -			sa->flags == TRANSPORT);
> > +			IS_TRANSPORT(sa->flags));
> I can see that at multiple places, sa->flags are accessed without your 
> defined macros. Could you please update this at all places, so that it 
> will be uniform across the application.
> 
> >
> >  	if (likely(sa->flags == IP4_TUNNEL))
> >  		ip_hdr_len = sizeof(struct ip);
> >  	else if (sa->flags == IP6_TUNNEL)
> >  		ip_hdr_len = sizeof(struct ip6_hdr);
> > -	else if (sa->flags != TRANSPORT) {
> > +	else if (!IS_TRANSPORT(sa->flags)) {
> >  		RTE_LOG(ERR, IPSEC_ESP, "Unsupported SA flags: 0x%x\n",
> >  				sa->flags);
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> > @@ -291,7 +291,7 @@ esp_outbound(struct rte_mbuf *m, struct ipsec_sa *sa,
> >  		rte_prefetch0(padding);
> >  	}
> >
> > -	switch (sa->flags) {
> > +	switch (WITHOUT_TRANSPORT_VERSION(sa->flags)) {
> I do not get the intent of this macro " WITHOUT_TRANSPORT_VERSION ". 
> could you explain this in comments or some better name of the macro.
> 
> >  	case IP4_TUNNEL:
> >  		ip4 = ip4ip_outbound(m, sizeof(struct rte_esp_hdr) + sa->iv_len,
> >  				&sa->src, &sa->dst);
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Akhil