RE: [EXT] [PATCH v2 11/14] cryptodev: move RSA padding into separate struct

[Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>]

> > > > >  /**
> > > > > + * RSA padding type
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +struct rte_crypto_rsa_padding {
> > > > > +	enum rte_crypto_rsa_padding_type type;
> > > > > +	/**< RSA padding scheme to be used for transform */
> > > > > +	enum rte_crypto_auth_algorithm md;
> > > > > +	/**<
> > > > > +	 * RSA padding hash function
> > > > > +	 *
> > > > > +	 * When a specific padding type is selected, the following rule
> apply:
> > > > > +	 * - RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PADDING_NONE:
> > > > > +	 * This field is ignored by the PMD
> > > > > +	 *
> > > > > +	 * - RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PADDING_PKCS1_5:
> > > > > +	 * When signing operation this field is used to determine value
> > > > > +	 * of the DigestInfo structure, therefore specifying which
> algorithm
> > > > > +	 * was used to create the message digest.
> > > > > +	 * When doing encryption/decryption this field is ignored for
> this
> > > > > +	 * padding type.
> > > > > +	 *
> > > > > +	 * - RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PADDING_OAEP
> > > > > +	 * This field shall be set with the hash algorithm used
> > > > > +	 * in the padding scheme
> > > > > +	 *
> > > > > +	 * - RTE_CRYPTO_RSA_PADDING_PSS
> > > > > +	 * This field shall be set with the hash algorithm used
> > > > > +	 * in the padding scheme (and to create the input message
> digest)
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > Forgot to comment on previous patch about the valid algos for this.
> > > > They are removed in previous patch, but it should not be removed. Right?
> > > Which hash functions are supported by RSA can be found in RSA
> > > standard, additionally our list was incomplete.
> > > There is no Hash functions enum in Cryptodev -> we keep Hash functions
> > > together with mac aglorithms, so that's why it was probably included
> > > in the first place. But I would say we should not specify valid algs here.
> >
> > In that case, mgf1md comment should also be updated.
> > But again, if we are combining with mac algos, we should specify it. Right?
> This
> > is not RFC, it is our implementation of the RFC. If we are combining with mac
> > algos, it makes more sense to specify the valid algos.
> Its actually not that big problem, though I thought it is stating the obvious.
> So we can add it back again but with full RSA hash list (including 512/224 256), or
> we will add it when this will be added to rte_crypto_auth_algorithm?

Whatever current support is there, it should be added to specify which all can be
Used from the rte_crypto_auth_algorithm enum. As not all can be blindly used.