Hi Akhil,

    No changes in sequence of API’s by adding ‘uint8_t impl_opaque’ to ‘struct rte_crypto_op’.

It’s required in case application/event dispatcher passes some implementation specific value in rte_event::impl_opaque, to restore the value

back on to rte_event::impl_opaque after enqueue to and dequeue from cryptodev.

Here is the pseudocode for one of the use case

Application/event dispatcher passes implementation specific value in rte_event::impl_opaque.

struct rte_event ev;

rte_event_dequeue_burst(…, &ev, …)

struct rte_crypto_op *crypto_op = ev.event_ptr;   // ev.impl_opaque some implementation specific value

rte_cryptodev_enqueue_burst(…, crypto_op, …) ; // ev.impl_opaque is not passed to crypto_op

With rte_crypto_op::impl_opaque field which is unchanged in library/driver

crypto_op->impl_opaque = ev.impl_opaque;

rte_cryptodev_enqueue_burst(…, crypto_op, …) ;

…

rte_crypto_dequeue_burst(…, crypto_op, …)

ev.event_ptr = crypto_op; 

…

rte_event_enqueue_burst(…, &ev, …);  // ev::impl_opaque value is lost

with rte_crypto_op::impl_opaque field

ev.event_ptr = crypto_op;

ev.impl_opaque = crypto_op->impl_opaque; // implementation specific value in rte_event::impl_opaque restored back

rte_event_enqueue_burst(…, &ev, …);

Thanks,

Ganapati

From: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 10:18 PM
To: Kundapura, Ganapati <ganapati.kundapura@intel.com>; dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>; fanzhang.oss@gmail.com; Ji, Kai <kai.ji@intel.com>; Power, Ciara <ciara.power@intel.com>; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX <arkadiuszx.kusztal@intel.com>; Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>; Jayatheerthan, Jay <jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com>; Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: RFC: Using and renaming 8-bit reserved field of rte_crypto_op for implementation specific

Hi Ganapati,

Can you please explain the flow with a sequence of APIs to be used.

Regards,

Akhil

From: Kundapura, Ganapati <ganapati.kundapura@intel.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 12:44 PM
To: dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>; Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>; fanzhang.oss@gmail.com; Ji, Kai <kai.ji@intel.com>; Power, Ciara <ciara.power@intel.com>; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX <arkadiuszx.kusztal@intel.com>; Gujjar, Abhinandan S <abhinandan.gujjar@intel.com>; Jayatheerthan, Jay <jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com>; Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RFC: Using and renaming 8-bit reserved field of rte_crypto_op for implementation specific

Prioritize security for external emails: Confirm sender and content safety before clicking links or opening attachments

---

Hi dpdk-dev,

   Can 'uint8_t reserved[1]' of 'struct rte_crypto_op' be renamed

to 'uint8_t impl_opaque' for implementation specific?

An implementation may use this field to hold implementation specific

value to share value between dequeue and enqueue operation and crypto library/driver

can also use this field to share implementation specfic value to event crypto adapter/application.

'struct rte_event' has 'uint8_t impl_opaque' member

struct rte_event {

                ...

                uint8_t impl_opaque;

                /**< Implementation specific opaque value.

                * An implementation may use this field to hold

                * implementation specific value to share between

                * dequeue and enqueue operation.

                * The application should not modify this field.

                */

                ...

};

Event crypto adapter, on dequeuing the event, enqueues rte_event::event_ptr

to cryptodev as rte_crypto_op and converts the dequeued crypto op to rte_event

without restoring the implementation specific opaque value.

By having the 'uint8_t impl_opaque' member in 'struct rte_crypto_op' as

diff --git a/lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto.h b/lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto.h

index dbc2700..af46ec9 100644

--- a/lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto.h

+++ b/lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto.h

@@ -146,10 +146,13 @@ struct rte_crypto_op {

                                /**< TLS record */

                        } param1;

                        /**< Additional per operation parameter 1. */

-                       uint8_t reserved[1];

-                       /**< Reserved bytes to fill 64 bits for

-                        * future additions

+                       uint8_t impl_opaque;

+                       /**< Implementation specific opaque value.

+                        * An implementation may use this field to hold

+                        * implementation specific value to share between

+                        * dequeue and enqueue operation.

                         */

+

which is untouched in library/driver and rte_event::impl_opaque field can be restored

while enqueuing the event back to eventdev.

Also crypto library/driver can use rte_crypto_op::impl_opaque field to

share implementation specific opaque value to the event crypto adapter/application.

I look forward to feedback on this proposal. Patch will be submitted

for review once the initial feedback is received.

Thank you,

Ganapati