From: Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com>
To: Anoob <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com>,
Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>,
Declan Doherty <declan.doherty@intel.com>,
Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
Narayana Prasad <narayanaprasad.athreya@caviumnetworks.com>,
dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] lib/security: add support for get metadata
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 09:43:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <40eaebc2-8472-f904-07f2-19325c12f3c8@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9603b9ad-1aa2-a724-7dd7-4e8d2fb05f33@caviumnetworks.com>
Hi,
On 12/6/2017 7:30 AM, Anoob wrote:
> Hi Akhil, Radu,
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Anoob
>
>
> On 11/24/2017 05:33 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
>> On 11/24/2017 5:29 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/24/2017 11:34 AM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
>>>> Hi Radu,
>>>> On 11/24/2017 4:47 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/24/2017 10:55 AM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/24/2017 3:09 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Comment inline
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/24/2017 8:50 AM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Anoob, Radu,
>>>>>>>> On 11/23/2017 4:49 PM, Anoob Joseph wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In case of inline protocol processed ingress traffic, the
>>>>>>>>> packet may not
>>>>>>>>> have enough information to determine the security parameters
>>>>>>>>> with which
>>>>>>>>> the packet was processed. In such cases, application could get
>>>>>>>>> metadata
>>>>>>>>> from the packet which could be used to identify the security
>>>>>>>>> parameters
>>>>>>>>> with which the packet was processed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> v3:
>>>>>>>>> * Replaced 64 bit metadata in conf with (void *)userdata
>>>>>>>>> * The API(rte_security_get_pkt_metadata) would return void *
>>>>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>>>> uint64_t
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> v2:
>>>>>>>>> * Replaced get_session and get_cookie APIs with
>>>>>>>>> get_pkt_metadata API
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> lib/librte_security/rte_security.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>> lib/librte_security/rte_security.h | 19
>>>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>> lib/librte_security/rte_security_driver.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 48 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
>>>>>>>>> b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
>>>>>>>>> index 1227fca..a1d78b6 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -108,6 +108,19 @@ rte_security_set_pkt_metadata(struct
>>>>>>>>> rte_security_ctx *instance,
>>>>>>>>> sess, m, params);
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> +void *
>>>>>>>>> +rte_security_get_pkt_metadata(struct rte_security_ctx *instance,
>>>>>>>>> + struct rte_mbuf *pkt)
>>>>>>>> Can we rename pkt with m. Just to make it consistent with the
>>>>>>>> set API.
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> + void *md = NULL;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*instance->ops->get_pkt_metadata,
>>>>>>>>> NULL);
>>>>>>>>> + if (instance->ops->get_pkt_metadata(instance->device,
>>>>>>>>> pkt, &md))
>>>>>>>>> + return NULL;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + return md;
>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pkt metadata should be set by user i.e. the application, and
>>>>>>>> the driver need not be aware of the format and the values of
>>>>>>>> the metadata.
>>>>>>>> So setting the metadata in the driver and getting it back from
>>>>>>>> the driver does not look a good idea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it possible, that the application define the metadata on its
>>>>>>>> own and set it in the library itself without the call to the
>>>>>>>> driver ops.
>>>>>>> I'm not sure I understand here; even in our case (ixgbe) the
>>>>>>> driver sets the metadata and it is aware of the format - that is
>>>>>>> the whole idea. This is why we added the set_metadata API, to
>>>>>>> allow the driver to inject extra information into the mbuf,
>>>>>>> information that is driver specific and derived from the
>>>>>>> security session, so it makes sense to also have a symmetric
>>>>>>> get_metadata.
>>>>>>> Private data is the one that follows those rules, i.e.
>>>>>>> application specific and driver transparent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As per my understanding of the user metadata, it should be in
>>>>>> control of the application, and the application shall know the
>>>>>> format of that. Setting in driver will disallow this.
>>>>>> Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If at all, some information is needed to be set on the basis of
>>>>>> driver, then application can get that information from the driver
>>>>>> and then set it in the packet metadata in its own way/format.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rte_security_set_pkt_metadata() doc defines the metadata as
>>>>> "device-specific defined metadata" and also takes a device
>>>>> specific params pointer, so the symmetric function is to be
>>>>> expected to work in the same way, i.e. return device specific
>>>>> metadata associated with the security session and instance and
>>>>> mbuf. How is this metadata stored is not specified in the security
>>>>> API, so the PMD implementation have the flexibility.
> Is rte_security_get_pkt_metadata() expected to return a "device
> specific" pointer? If that's the case, we would need another call
> (something like, rte_security_get_userdata()) to get back the
> userdata, right? Or is it fine, if the application assumes it will get
> userdata (the one passed in conf while creating security session) with
> rte_security_get_pkt_metadata()?
Yes, this will be my assumption, a "device specific" pointer (similar to
the "void *params" parameter of the rte_security_set_pkt_metadata
function), which will contain an arbitrary defined structure that will
be decoded by calling a PMD defined function.
But I think Akhil has a different view on this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes it was defined that way and I did not noticed this one at the
>>>> time of it's implementation.
>>>> Here, my point is that the application may be using mbuf udata for
>>>> it's own functionality, it should not be modified in the driver.
>>>>
>>>> However, if we need to do this, then we may need to clarify in the
>>>> documentation that for security, udata shall be set with the
>>>> rte_security_set_pkt_metadata() and not otherwise.
>>> Indeed, we should update the doc stating that the set_metadata may
>>> change the mbuf userdata field so the application should use only
>>> private data if needed.
>>
>> Agreed, but it is dependent on which driver/mode(inline or
>> lookaside), it will be used.
>> Lookaside may not need this API as of now. Other implementations may
>> also don't require. So this shall be documented that way.
>>
>> -Akhil
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-06 9:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-20 10:31 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] add inline protocol support Anoob Joseph
2017-11-20 10:31 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] lib/security: add support for saving app cookie Anoob Joseph
2017-11-20 12:12 ` Radu Nicolau
2017-11-20 15:32 ` Anoob
2017-11-20 17:49 ` Radu Nicolau
2017-11-20 19:09 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-11-21 10:15 ` Radu Nicolau
2017-11-20 10:31 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add support for inline protocol Anoob Joseph
2017-11-22 6:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/2] add inline protocol support Anoob Joseph
2017-11-22 6:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] lib/security: add support for get metadata Anoob Joseph
2017-11-22 11:29 ` Radu Nicolau
2017-11-22 11:52 ` Anoob
2017-11-22 12:12 ` Radu Nicolau
2017-11-22 13:27 ` Neil Horman
2017-11-22 14:13 ` Anoob
2017-11-27 13:55 ` Neil Horman
2017-11-22 6:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add support for inline protocol Anoob Joseph
2017-11-22 12:21 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/2] add inline protocol support Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-11-22 12:55 ` Anoob
2017-11-22 13:05 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-11-22 13:38 ` Anoob
2017-11-22 13:53 ` Anoob
2017-11-22 15:13 ` Anoob
2017-11-22 15:25 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-11-23 11:19 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 " Anoob Joseph
2017-11-23 11:19 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] lib/security: add support for get metadata Anoob Joseph
2017-11-24 8:50 ` Akhil Goyal
2017-11-24 9:39 ` Radu Nicolau
2017-11-24 10:55 ` Akhil Goyal
2017-11-24 11:17 ` Radu Nicolau
2017-11-24 11:34 ` Akhil Goyal
2017-11-24 11:59 ` Radu Nicolau
2017-11-24 12:03 ` Akhil Goyal
2017-12-06 7:30 ` Anoob
2017-12-06 9:43 ` Radu Nicolau [this message]
2017-12-11 7:21 ` Anoob
2017-12-12 8:55 ` Akhil Goyal
2017-12-12 13:50 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-13 14:38 ` Akhil Goyal
2017-11-24 12:22 ` Anoob
2017-11-29 5:43 ` Anoob
2017-12-04 9:28 ` Akhil Goyal
2017-12-04 10:16 ` Anoob
2017-11-23 11:19 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add support for inline protocol Anoob Joseph
2017-12-11 11:02 ` Radu Nicolau
2017-12-15 8:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/2] add inline protocol support Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15 8:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/2] lib/security: add support for get userdata Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15 8:30 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add support for inline protocol Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15 8:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/2] add inline protocol support Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15 8:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/2] lib/security: add support for get userdata Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15 10:01 ` Akhil Goyal
2017-12-15 10:53 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15 10:58 ` Akhil Goyal
2017-12-15 8:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add support for inline protocol Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15 9:39 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-15 11:03 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15 13:35 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-15 10:04 ` Akhil Goyal
2017-12-15 11:16 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-18 7:15 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/2] add inline protocol support Anoob Joseph
2017-12-18 7:15 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/2] lib/security: add support for get userdata Anoob Joseph
2017-12-18 7:34 ` Akhil Goyal
2017-12-18 7:15 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add support for inline protocol Anoob Joseph
2018-01-08 16:10 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2018-01-09 9:12 ` Akhil Goyal
2018-01-16 11:00 ` Nicolau, Radu
2018-01-09 16:05 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/2] add inline protocol support De Lara Guarch, Pablo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=40eaebc2-8472-f904-07f2-19325c12f3c8@intel.com \
--to=radu.nicolau@intel.com \
--cc=akhil.goyal@nxp.com \
--cc=anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=declan.doherty@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=narayanaprasad.athreya@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).