From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <radu.nicolau@intel.com>
Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F1FFE5
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:09:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48])
by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2017 07:09:50 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.41,453,1498546800"; d="scan'208";a="306561700"
Received: from rnicolau-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.221.79])
([10.237.221.79])
by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2017 07:09:46 -0700
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, borisp@mellanox.com, declan.doherty@intel.com,
aviadye@mellanox.com, sandeep.malik@nxp.com, hemant.agrawal@nxp.com,
pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com
References: <7834b3bd-0800-500c-1c89-3b89e2eb47fa@nxp.com>
<7410549.rg854U5vhU@xps> <874c2bd0-d097-5082-8a9d-1f9341505ac6@nxp.com>
<5392171.j1FdNZENvz@xps>
From: Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com>
Message-ID: <94a4b6b5-a80a-9884-244a-02131c695eff@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:09:45 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5392171.j1FdNZENvz@xps>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/1] IPSec Inline and look aside crypto
offload
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 14:09:52 -0000
On 8/31/2017 2:14 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 31/08/2017 12:52, Akhil Goyal:
>> On 8/31/2017 3:36 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>> 31/08/2017 11:37, Akhil Goyal:
>>>> On 8/29/2017 8:19 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>>>>> 25/07/2017 13:21, Akhil Goyal:
>>>> 2. Ipsec inline(RTE_SECURITY_SESS_ETH_INLINE_CRYPTO) - This is when the
>>>> crypto operations are performed by ethernet device instead of crypto
>>>> device. This is also without protocol knowledge inside the ethernet device
>>> If the ethernet device can act as a crypto device, this function
>>> should be offered via the cryptodev interface.
>> yes this could be thought of but the intent was to keep cryptodev and
>> ethdev separate, as this would create confusion and will become
>> difficult to manage.
> I think the reverse: it is confusing to do crypto operations through
> ethdev interface.
> If a device can do "standalone crypto" and networking, it should appear as
> 2 different ports in my opinion.
>
>>> How is it different from mode RTE_SECURITY_SESS_NONE?
>> In RTE_SECURITY_SESS_NONE - crypto device is used for crypto operations.
>> In RTE_SECURITY_SESS_ETH_INLINE_CRYPTO - ethernet device is used for
>> crypto operations.
>> For details of the data path of this mode, refer to the covernote of RFC
>> patch from Boris.
>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-July/070793.html
>>
>> For implementation of this mode, see patches from Radu,
>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-August/073587.html
> Boris RFC uses rte_flow.
> Radu implementation does not use rte_flow.
> So I still don't understand the big picture.
> Boris asked the question and had no answer.
I'll answer here: it was an omission from my side; v2 of the will
include rte_flow usage, derived from Boris RFC.
>
>>> Is there direct Rx/Tx involved in this mode?
>> No the packet will come to the application and will add/remove relevant
>> headers and then send the packet to the appropriate eth dev after route
>> lookup.
>>
>>>> 3. full protocol offload(RTE_SECURITY_SESS_ETH_PROTO_OFFLOAD) - This is
>>>> same as 2 but with protocol support in the ethernet device.
>>> Is there direct Rx/Tx in RTE_SECURITY_SESS_ETH_PROTO_OFFLOAD?
>> No, there should not be direct rx/tx as the application will do route
>> lookup and send the packet to relevant ethernet interface.
>>>> 4. look aside protocol offload(RTE_SECURITY_SESS_CRYPTO_PROTO_OFFLOAD) -
>>>> This is same as 1 but with protocol support in crypto device.
>>> Who is responsible for Rx/Tx in RTE_SECURITY_SESS_CRYPTO_PROTO_OFFLOAD?
>> The packet is returned back to the application as in the case of non
>> protocol offload. But the application doesnt need to take care of the
>> headers and other protocol specifics. It just need to forward the packet
>> to the relevent eth dev after route lookup.
>> Please refer to RFC v2 of the proposal it has more details in the header
>> file rte_security.h and the implementation using the ipsec-secgw
>> application.
>> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-August/072900.html
> So there is no direct Rx/Tx in any mode?
> What is the point of using an ethdev port if there is no Rx/Tx?
>
>>> [...]
>>>>>> The application can decide using the below action types
>>>>>> enum rte_security_session_action_type {
>>>>>> RTE_SECURITY_SESS_ETH_INLINE_CRYPTO,
>>>>>> /**< Crypto operations are performed by Network interface */
>>>>> In this mode, the ethdev port does the same thing as a crypto port?
>>>> not exactly everything. In this mode, only cipher and auth operations
>>>> are performed by the eth device. No intelligence about the protocol is
>>>> done. This is similar to what the current implementation do with the
>>>> crypto device(Non protocol offload).
>>> Are you saying no but yes?
>>> I say "ethdev port does the same thing as a crypto port"
>>> You say "similar to what the current implementation do with the crypto device"
>> This is said so because the crypto device may also support protocol offload.
>>>>>> RTE_SECURITY_SESS_ETH_PROTO_OFFLOAD,
>>>>>> /**< Crypto operations with protocol support are performed
>>>>>> * by Network/ethernet device.
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> RTE_SECURITY_SESS_CRYPTO_PROTO_OFFLOAD,
>>>>>> /**< Crypto operations with protocol support are performed
>>>>>> * by Crypto device.
>>>>>> */
>>>>> I guess the difference between ETH_PROTO_OFFLOAD and CRYPTO_PROTO_OFFLOAD
>>>>> is that we must re-inject packets from CRYPTO_PROTO_OFFLOAD to the NIC?
>>>> yes
>>> OK
>>> Who is responsible to re-inject packets from CRYPTO_PROTO_OFFLOAD to the NIC?
>> Application will do the forwarding after route lookup
>>>>>> RTE_SECURITY_SESS_NONE
>>>>>> /**< Non protocol offload. Application need to manage everything */
>>>>>> };
>>>>> What RTE_SECURITY_SESS_NONE does? It is said to be implemented above.
>>>> It is non protocol offload mentioned above.
>>> How is it different from using cryptodev?
>> No it is not different. It is just to mention that there is no security
>> session involved and the application will use the cryptodev.
> As far as I understand, my vote is a NACK for the current proposal.