From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6AAA0544; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 12:02:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A2240F17; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 12:02:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pj1-f41.google.com (mail-pj1-f41.google.com [209.85.216.41]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7212040041 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 12:02:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pj1-f41.google.com with SMTP id pb15so13519220pjb.5 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 03:02:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=content-language:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=M4skVoAlcrYv5taZUzYwicYBk8dzuXYO+I/xEWfEsX8=; b=M009CIvv12H6G9Lwer/kz6xOl5+qmHMhfeKJIM6kM4IN+uMy06FZiRKRs4iUvDdqLE c62YgoQUNAUmcfJWA2u4COTdaB09ocmONcuvFp1y7u0RCgWMfcnAEm7dsJIzC00MzY6N yo3IttCGDbYs88IXJamN0V1874j1P8bMKYv9gY05icX/RbfTpsrZF/M9TqrbhAc9FyOU USI0mLshZCD+06Z3UN7uAEFqUJqy6VwlaRW/QxMvl28d/76wVE5IvvEOKzoh7v+EHxWv Z7dU9sgEs76B0NnKG2Ah1SqrbAEx8IyuQoUr1XfKZfsLp8IiyNZSHbp2MdygMxg03COi kDyQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-language:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=M4skVoAlcrYv5taZUzYwicYBk8dzuXYO+I/xEWfEsX8=; b=XkR7bWfu1j+jITQN8/wMY2iBvksyriZACBAf/K0/sIcwIEOHX21YiSs1pRM234GOtL XjVMc2DGzAPmmxe6hFCKT3On4abFAOYRRm7SAvGH6KvZV1VqcOAkHBsYGUquRffUniXU jT3v2nR1q46pLgATkOSQ/jOb5UEiYNK8t/ddbjuaRcs4YwBMwN+xbYyrPgpGBhOCZr4P ZoAADYGmitSjz84RTfYSKfAL9DPyXWoSb/Nz8CS/CpFOncfEoSEDFye3rzX+XchZ8fgk wuARq98FjMw+Brw0fYPC3XzJb28R9SuHWHnlc2QKIBFL9Pvk7dpkWTi5iYpx2a5YBJ5k Cc7g== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0MU3sbvCABjpkOGBDgFe7GEW+Y2MLgu2BiHQ6eNrO8YYb8wVAN bhPsobLFVszrHdNl3m6x31H+2g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4E8lPeL5aT/dpr42Bo57J0/g9Ymk/p/i+d9kmViBNZfr4XgPVC1kX6MSs2UFE9YxhMzaP11w== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:8988:b0:212:e1b9:e8fd with SMTP id v8-20020a17090a898800b00212e1b9e8fdmr3306982pjn.148.1666778544673; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 03:02:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [100.64.100.6] ([194.5.48.70]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x21-20020a17090300d500b00183e2a96414sm2543296plc.121.2022.10.26.03.02.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 26 Oct 2022 03:02:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [EXT] [PATCH resend v5 5/6] crypto/uadk: support auth algorithms To: Akhil Goyal , Zhangfei Gao , Declan Doherty , Fan Zhang , Ashish Gupta , Ray Kinsella , "thomas@monjalon.net" Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "acc@openeuler.org" References: <20221024134409.1896776-1-zhangfei.gao@linaro.org> <20221024134409.1896776-6-zhangfei.gao@linaro.org> From: Zhangfei Gao Message-ID: <6d05fb62-0e19-508e-638d-72a4d0905e41@linaro.org> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 18:02:16 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On 2022/10/25 下午10:38, Akhil Goyal wrote: >> Hash algorithms: >> >> * ``RTE_CRYPTO_AUTH_MD5`` >> * ``RTE_CRYPTO_AUTH_MD5_HMAC`` >> * ``RTE_CRYPTO_AUTH_SHA1`` >> * ``RTE_CRYPTO_AUTH_SHA1_HMAC`` >> * ``RTE_CRYPTO_AUTH_SHA224`` >> * ``RTE_CRYPTO_AUTH_SHA224_HMAC`` >> * ``RTE_CRYPTO_AUTH_SHA256`` >> * ``RTE_CRYPTO_AUTH_SHA256_HMAC`` >> * ``RTE_CRYPTO_AUTH_SHA384`` >> * ``RTE_CRYPTO_AUTH_SHA384_HMAC`` >> * ``RTE_CRYPTO_AUTH_SHA512`` >> * ``RTE_CRYPTO_AUTH_SHA512_HMAC`` >> > It is better to rewrite the description as > > Support added for MD5, SHA1, SHA224, SHA256, SHA384, SHA512 > Authentication algorithms with and without HMAC. > >> Signed-off-by: Zhangfei Gao > >> --- >> doc/guides/cryptodevs/features/uadk.ini | 12 + >> doc/guides/cryptodevs/uadk.rst | 15 + >> drivers/crypto/uadk/uadk_crypto_pmd.c | 459 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 486 insertions(+) >> > > >> @@ -72,6 +84,252 @@ RTE_LOG_REGISTER_DEFAULT(uadk_crypto_logtype, >> INFO); >> ## __VA_ARGS__) >> >> static const struct rte_cryptodev_capabilities uadk_crypto_v2_capabilities[] = { >> + { /* MD5 HMAC */ >> + .op = RTE_CRYPTO_OP_TYPE_SYMMETRIC, >> + {.sym = { >> + .xform_type = RTE_CRYPTO_SYM_XFORM_AUTH, >> + {.auth = { >> + .algo = RTE_CRYPTO_AUTH_MD5_HMAC, >> + .block_size = 64, >> + .key_size = { >> + .min = 0, >> + .max = 0, >> + .increment = 0 >> + }, > It seems there is a mistake here. > Auth algos with HMAC do have keys > 0. > > I am not sure if your test cases are getting passed with these capabilities. > > Same comment for all the HMAC capabilities. After double confirmed, and studied the openssl crypto config. The hash do not have key, so value is 0 But HMAC need key, After using openssl crypto value, the passed case increased from 50 to 72, though no reported fail case in both case. Thanks for the reminding.