Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 01/10] security: introduce CPU Crypto action type and API

[Hemant Agrawal <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>]

Hi Konstantin,

n 06-Sep-19 6:43 PM, Fan Zhang wrote:
>>> This patch introduce new RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_CPU_CRYPTO action type to
>>> security library. The type represents performing crypto operation with CPU
>>> cycles. The patch also includes a new API to process crypto operations in
>>> bulk and the function pointers for PMDs.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zhang@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>    lib/librte_security/rte_security.c           | 16 +++++++++
>>>    lib/librte_security/rte_security.h           | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>    lib/librte_security/rte_security_driver.h    | 19 +++++++++++
>>>    lib/librte_security/rte_security_version.map |  1 +
>>>    4 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
>>> index bc81ce15d..0f85c1b59 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
>>> @@ -141,3 +141,19 @@ rte_security_capability_get(struct rte_security_ctx *instance,
>>>
>>>    	return NULL;
>>>    }
>>> +
>>> +void
>>> +rte_security_process_cpu_crypto_bulk(struct rte_security_ctx *instance,
>>> +		struct rte_security_session *sess,
>>> +		struct rte_security_vec buf[], void *iv[], void *aad[],
>>> +		void *digest[], int status[], uint32_t num)
>>> +{
>>> +	uint32_t i;
>>> +
>>> +	for (i = 0; i < num; i++)
>>> +		status[i] = -1;
>>> +
>>> +	RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_RET(*instance->ops->process_cpu_crypto_bulk);
>>> +	instance->ops->process_cpu_crypto_bulk(sess, buf, iv,
>>> +			aad, digest, status, num);
>>> +}
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.h b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.h
>>> index 96806e3a2..5a0f8901b 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.h
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.h
>>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ extern "C" {
>>>    #endif
>>>
>>>    #include <sys/types.h>
>>> +#include <sys/uio.h>
>>>
>>>    #include <netinet/in.h>
>>>    #include <netinet/ip.h>
>>> @@ -272,6 +273,20 @@ struct rte_security_pdcp_xform {
>>>    	uint32_t hfn_threshold;
>>>    };
>>>
>>> +struct rte_security_cpu_crypto_xform {
>>> +	/** For cipher/authentication crypto operation the authentication may
>>> +	 * cover more content then the cipher. E.g., for IPSec ESP encryption
>>> +	 * with AES-CBC and SHA1-HMAC, the encryption happens after the ESP
>>> +	 * header but whole packet (apart from MAC header) is authenticated.
>>> +	 * The cipher_offset field is used to deduct the cipher data pointer
>>> +	 * from the buffer to be processed.
>>> +	 *
>>> +	 * NOTE this parameter shall be ignored by AEAD algorithms, since it
>>> +	 * uses the same offset for cipher and authentication.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	int32_t cipher_offset;
>>> +};
>>> +
>>>    /**
>>>     * Security session action type.
>>>     */
>>> @@ -286,10 +301,14 @@ enum rte_security_session_action_type {
>>>    	/**< All security protocol processing is performed inline during
>>>    	 * transmission
>>>    	 */
>>> -	RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_LOOKASIDE_PROTOCOL
>>> +	RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_LOOKASIDE_PROTOCOL,
>>>    	/**< All security protocol processing including crypto is performed
>>>    	 * on a lookaside accelerator
>>>    	 */
>>> +	RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_CPU_CRYPTO
>>> +	/**< Crypto processing for security protocol is processed by CPU
>>> +	 * synchronously
>>> +	 */
>> though you are naming it cpu crypto, but it is more like raw packet
>> crypto, where you want to skip mbuf/crypto ops and directly wants to
>> work on raw buffer.
> Yes, but we do wat to do that (skip mbuf/crypto ops and use raw buffer),
> because this API is destined for SW backed implementation.
> For that case crypto-ops , mbuf, enqueue/dequeue are just unnecessary overhead.
I agree, we are also planning to take advantage of it for some specific 
use-cases in future.
>>>    };
>>>
>>>    /** Security session protocol definition */
>>> @@ -315,6 +334,7 @@ struct rte_security_session_conf {
>>>    		struct rte_security_ipsec_xform ipsec;
>>>    		struct rte_security_macsec_xform macsec;
>>>    		struct rte_security_pdcp_xform pdcp;
>>> +		struct rte_security_cpu_crypto_xform cpucrypto;
>>>    	};
>>>    	/**< Configuration parameters for security session */
>>>    	struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *crypto_xform;
>>> @@ -639,6 +659,35 @@ const struct rte_security_capability *
>>>    rte_security_capability_get(struct rte_security_ctx *instance,
>>>    			    struct rte_security_capability_idx *idx);
>>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * Security vector structure, contains pointer to vector array and the length
>>> + * of the array
>>> + */
>>> +struct rte_security_vec {
>>> +	struct iovec *vec;
>>> +	uint32_t num;
>>> +};
>>> +
>> Just wondering if you want to change it to *in_vec and *out_vec, that
>> will be helpful in future, if the out-of-place processing is required
>> for CPU usecase as well?
> I suppose this is doable, though right now we don't plan to support such model.
They will come handy in future. I plan to use it in future and we can 
skip the API/ABI breakage, if the placeholder are present
>
>>> +/**
>>> + * Processing bulk crypto workload with CPU
>>> + *
>>> + * @param	instance	security instance.
>>> + * @param	sess		security session
>>> + * @param	buf		array of buffer SGL vectors
>>> + * @param	iv		array of IV pointers
>>> + * @param	aad		array of AAD pointers
>>> + * @param	digest		array of digest pointers
>>> + * @param	status		array of status for the function to return
>>> + * @param	num		number of elements in each array
>>> + *
>>> + */
>>> +__rte_experimental
>>> +void
>>> +rte_security_process_cpu_crypto_bulk(struct rte_security_ctx *instance,
>>> +		struct rte_security_session *sess,
>>> +		struct rte_security_vec buf[], void *iv[], void *aad[],
>>> +		void *digest[], int status[], uint32_t num);
>>> +
>> Why not make the return as int, to indicate whether this API completely
>> failed or processed or have some valid status to look into?
> Good point, will change as suggested.

I have another suggestions w.r.t iv, aad, digest etc. Why not put them 
in a structure, so that you will

be able to add/remove the variable without breaking the API prototype.

>
>>
>>>    #ifdef __cplusplus
>>>    }
>>>    #endif
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_security/rte_security_driver.h b/lib/librte_security/rte_security_driver.h
>>> index 1b561f852..70fcb0c26 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_security/rte_security_driver.h
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_security/rte_security_driver.h
>>> @@ -132,6 +132,23 @@ typedef int (*security_get_userdata_t)(void *device,
>>>    typedef const struct rte_security_capability *(*security_capabilities_get_t)(
>>>    		void *device);
>>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * Process security operations in bulk using CPU accelerated method.
>>> + *
>>> + * @param	sess		Security session structure.
>>> + * @param	buf		Buffer to the vectors to be processed.
>>> + * @param	iv		IV pointers.
>>> + * @param	aad		AAD pointers.
>>> + * @param	digest		Digest pointers.
>>> + * @param	status		Array of status value.
>>> + * @param	num		Number of elements in each array.
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> +typedef void (*security_process_cpu_crypto_bulk_t)(
>>> +		struct rte_security_session *sess,
>>> +		struct rte_security_vec buf[], void *iv[], void *aad[],
>>> +		void *digest[], int status[], uint32_t num);
>>> +
>>>    /** Security operations function pointer table */
>>>    struct rte_security_ops {
>>>    	security_session_create_t session_create;
>>> @@ -150,6 +167,8 @@ struct rte_security_ops {
>>>    	/**< Get userdata associated with session which processed the packet. */
>>>    	security_capabilities_get_t capabilities_get;
>>>    	/**< Get security capabilities. */
>>> +	security_process_cpu_crypto_bulk_t process_cpu_crypto_bulk;
>>> +	/**< Process data in bulk. */
>>>    };
>>>
>>>    #ifdef __cplusplus
>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_security/rte_security_version.map b/lib/librte_security/rte_security_version.map
>>> index 53267bf3c..2132e7a00 100644
>>> --- a/lib/librte_security/rte_security_version.map
>>> +++ b/lib/librte_security/rte_security_version.map
>>> @@ -18,4 +18,5 @@ EXPERIMENTAL {
>>>    	rte_security_get_userdata;
>>>    	rte_security_session_stats_get;
>>>    	rte_security_session_update;
>>> +	rte_security_process_cpu_crypto_bulk;
>>>    };