RE: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH] app/crypto-perf: fix aad offset alignment

[Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>]

> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > > AAD offset in AES-GCM crypto test was calculated by adding 16-byte
> > > > alignment after the IV, which is only needed in AES-CCM.
> > >
> > > Agreed that CCM has a requirement for 16B alignment.
> > > But for GCM, does it break any protocol? Can we not align to byte
> > > boundary for performance?
> > > This is a performance application which mainly focus on getting the
> > > best throughput.
> > > Did you check if it is having some performance degradation?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The patch correct the AAD offset calculation in AES-GCM algorithm tests.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 0b242422d385 ("app/crypto-perf: set AAD after the crypto
> > > > operation")
> > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Shani Peretz <shperetz@nvidia.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_ops.c | 4 +++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_ops.c
> > > > b/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_ops.c
> > > > index 6d5f510220..f9be51e17f 100644
> > > > --- a/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_ops.c
> > > > +++ b/app/test-crypto-perf/cperf_ops.c
> > > > @@ -688,7 +688,9 @@ cperf_set_ops_aead(struct rte_crypto_op **ops,
> > > >       uint16_t i;
> > > >       /* AAD is placed after the IV */
> > > >       uint16_t aad_offset = iv_offset +
> > > > -                     RTE_ALIGN_CEIL(test_vector->aead_iv.length, 16);
> > > > +                     ((options->aead_algo ==
> > > > + RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_AES_CCM)
> > > > ?
> > > > +                     RTE_ALIGN_CEIL(test_vector->aead_iv.length, 16) :
> > > > +                     test_vector->aead_iv.length);
> > > >
> > > >       for (i = 0; i < nb_ops; i++) {
> > > >               struct rte_crypto_sym_op *sym_op = ops[i]->sym;
> > > > --
> > > > 2.25.1
> >
> > I checked the throughput test, and I haven't noticed any degradation
> > compared to upstream. I can share the results if needed.
> > Note that regardless of the performance it fixes several segmentation faults in
> > the test.
> > (The problem is that we allocate the crypto_op_private_size without
> > alignment, but we try to access as if it was 16 byte alignment)
> 
> Hey, Is there anything else I can do to promote this fix?
Applied to dpdk-next-crypto