Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] cryptodev: version cryptodev info get function

["Trahe, Fiona" <fiona.trahe@intel.com>]

Hi Ray, Akhil,


> On 20/04/2020 15:22, Akhil Goyal wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> This patch adds versioned function rte_cryptodev_info_get()
> >> to prevent some issues with ABI policy.
> >> Node v21 works in same way as before, returning driver capabilities
> >> directly to the API caller. These capabilities may include new elements
> >> not part of the v20 ABI.
> >> Node v20 function maintains compatibility with v20 ABI releases
> >> by stripping out elements not supported in v20 ABI. Because
> >> rte_cryptodev_info_get is called by other API functions,
> >> rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get function is versioned the same way.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Arek Kusztal <arkadiuszx.kusztal@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >> v2:
> >> - changed version numbers of symbols to 20.0.2
> >> v3:
> >> - added v2/v3 informations
> >> - changed version numbers of symbols to 21
> >> - fixed checkpatch issues
> >>
> >> This patch depends on following patches:
> >>
> >> [1] - "[v3] cryptodev: add chacha20-poly1305 aead algorithm"
> >> (https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpatchwor
> >> k.dpdk.org%2Fpatch%2F64549%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cakhil.goyal%40nxp.
> >> com%7Ce6789fd42a5946c128e508d7e2dffe2f%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c
> >> 5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637227323980059545&amp;sdata=50eQJE7WHTME6d
> >> qA7Nfk%2B50PVAyJrpKlMw%2BoGtA1%2FTc%3D&amp;reserved=0)
> >
> > Please include the dependent patches in a single series in your next version.
> >>
> >>  lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c           | 143 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>  lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h           |  39 ++++++-
> >>  lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_version.map |   7 ++
> >>  3 files changed, 186 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> >> b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> >> index 6d1d0e9..b061447 100644
> >> --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> >> +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
> >> @@ -41,6 +41,9 @@
> >>  #include "rte_cryptodev.h"
> >>  #include "rte_cryptodev_pmd.h"
> >>
> >> +#include <rte_compat.h>
> >> +#include <rte_function_versioning.h>
> >> +
> >>  static uint8_t nb_drivers;
> >>
> >>  static struct rte_cryptodev rte_crypto_devices[RTE_CRYPTO_MAX_DEVS];
> >> @@ -56,6 +59,14 @@ static struct rte_cryptodev_global cryptodev_globals = {
> >>  /* spinlock for crypto device callbacks */
> >>  static rte_spinlock_t rte_cryptodev_cb_lock = RTE_SPINLOCK_INITIALIZER;
> >>
> >> +static const struct rte_cryptodev_capabilities
> >> +		cryptodev_undefined_capabilities[] = {
> >> +		RTE_CRYPTODEV_END_OF_CAPABILITIES_LIST()
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static struct rte_cryptodev_capabilities
> >> +		*capability_copies[RTE_CRYPTO_MAX_DEVS];
> >
> > Capabilities_copy is a better name as it is copy of many capabilities.
[Fiona] ok


> >>  const struct rte_cryptodev_symmetric_capability *
> >> -rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get(uint8_t dev_id,
> >> +rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get_v20(uint8_t dev_id,
> >
> > __vsym Annotation to be used in a declaration of the internal symbol
> > to signal that it is being used as an implementation of a particular
> > version of symbol.
[Fiona] ok


> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	return NULL;
> >> +
> >
> > Extra line
[Fiona] ok

> >
> >> +}
> >> +VERSION_SYMBOL(rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get, _v20, 20.0);
> >> +
> >> +const struct rte_cryptodev_symmetric_capability *
> >
> > __vsym annotation
[Fiona] ok


> >
> >> +rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get_v21(uint8_t dev_id,
> >>  		const struct rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_idx *idx)
> >>  {
> >>  	const struct rte_cryptodev_capabilities *capability;
> >> @@ -313,6 +360,10 @@ rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get(uint8_t dev_id,
> >>  	return NULL;
> >>
> >>  }
> >> +MAP_STATIC_SYMBOL(const struct rte_cryptodev_symmetric_capability *
> >> +		rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get(uint8_t dev_id,
> >> +		const struct rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_idx *idx),
> >> +		rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get_v21);
> >>
> >>  static int
> >>  param_range_check(uint16_t size, const struct rte_crypto_param_range *range)
> >> @@ -999,6 +1050,13 @@ rte_cryptodev_close(uint8_t dev_id)
> >>  	RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->dev_close, -ENOTSUP);
> >>  	retval = (*dev->dev_ops->dev_close)(dev);
> >>
> >> +
> >> +	if (capability_copies[dev_id]) {
> >> +		free(capability_copies[dev_id]);
> >> +		capability_copies[dev_id] = NULL;
> >> +	}
> >> +	is_capability_checked[dev_id] = 0;
> >> +
> >>  	if (retval < 0)
> >>  		return retval;
> >>
> >> @@ -1111,9 +1169,61 @@ rte_cryptodev_stats_reset(uint8_t dev_id)
> >>  	(*dev->dev_ops->stats_reset)(dev);
> >>  }
> >>
> >> +static void
> >> +get_v20_capabilities(uint8_t dev_id, struct rte_cryptodev_info *dev_info)
> >> +{
> >> +	const struct rte_cryptodev_capabilities *capability;
> >> +	uint8_t found_invalid_capa = 0;
> >> +	uint8_t counter = 0;
> >> +
> >> +	for (capability = dev_info->capabilities;
> >> +			capability->op != RTE_CRYPTO_OP_TYPE_UNDEFINED;
> >> +			++capability, ++counter) {
> >> +		if (capability->op == RTE_CRYPTO_OP_TYPE_SYMMETRIC &&
> >> +				capability->sym.xform_type ==
> >> +					RTE_CRYPTO_SYM_XFORM_AEAD
> >> +				&& capability->sym.aead.algo >=
> >> +				RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305) {
> >> +			found_invalid_capa = 1;
> >> +			counter--;
> >> +		}
> >> +	}
> >> +	is_capability_checked[dev_id] = 1;
> >> +	if (found_invalid_capa) {
> >
> > Code becomes unreadable due to indentation which can be avoided.
[Fiona] ok



> >> +void
> >> +rte_cryptodev_info_get_v21(uint8_t dev_id, struct rte_cryptodev_info
> >> *dev_info);
> >> +BIND_DEFAULT_SYMBOL(rte_cryptodev_info_get, _v21, 21);
> >
> > I am not sure if we need to bind for _v20 also
> > BIND_DEFAULT_SYMBOL(rte_cryptodev_info_get, _v20, 20);
> 
> The correct call to VERSION_SYMBOL is already above.
[Fiona] ok, so won't do this.


> > Ray, can you please suggest if it required or not? And what all we need to check?
> 
> See below.
> 
> >
> > The patch is still showing Incompatibilities
> > NOTICE: ABI may be incompatible, check reports/logs for details.
> > NOTICE: Incompatible list:  librte_cryptodev.so
> 
> So I looked through the issues it is complaining about, these are here.
> https://travis-ci.com/github/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/320526253#L4540
> 
> Basically they all are warnings related to the changes to the enumeration
> rte_crypto_aead_algorithm.
> 
> Essentially the new member RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305.
> The change to the end value RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_LIST_END.
> Members of this type "enum rte_crypto_aead_algorithm algo" are demeeded to also have changed,
> but they haven't.
> 
> With the additional work to create the v20 version of rte_cryptodev_info_get.
> I think all reasonable steps have been been taken here.
[Fiona] Do we need to change the tool or somehow mark as a false positive?


> >>  /**
> >>   * Register a callback function for specific device id.
> >> diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_version.map
> >> b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_version.map
> >> index 6e41b4b..512a4a7 100644
> >> --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_version.map
> >> +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_version.map
> >> @@ -58,6 +58,13 @@ DPDK_20.0 {
> >>  	local: *;
> >>  };
> >>
> >> +DPDK_21 {
> 
> Should be DPDK_21.0
[Fiona] Can you explain why?
I thought it could go back to a 2-number system with _v21 ABI.
I thought we'd clarified that DPDK_20.0 is only there due to a mistake, that should have been DPDK_20.
 

> >> +	global:
> >> +	rte_cryptodev_info_get;
> >> +	rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get;
> >> +} DPDK_20.0;
> >> +
> >> +
> >>  EXPERIMENTAL {
> >>  	global:
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.1.0
> >