From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1156A2EDB for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 15:43:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB05493D; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 15:43:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUR03-AM5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr30082.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.3.82]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B954044C3 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 15:43:56 +0200 (CEST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=YMw3xJUeLAavwtaEsf1aV0nTKuLjZ/1GENlf/JvuvOmX1Lfag5NquhXBLOg6Q9fW7YUvhTSf9MtBTlRZIhMRj8EPlSYpyHKY8SVOuwXCWgV88S+hoqV/5HJ2CjB1hLD8JHXOl9P8vu/0ZNeMSkoAFGON7HtNhFmV4VyucjJTFvasbAG2gf9zYTxtTgQLDh+U3b/iXDYHiF6MF05uFhdgjoMguWc3pLmeUSJNBBNVCiLXCabcdqyNOLNn1BgenFb1+slQJ9KVIw0Xgr8/uBLUrDwrYGZCYNEqeoSDRadf0sGEOfNytNK/nHxLgg2BBYV9rgqQEB2hGmKPReoJLBOp8w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=i9RCvVBNal6gZE4833sG10JAboTx5pfkx3W1BD/RplI=; b=j5s5rF2keQiFpLH1AqJKcJI2TtFasPWXfbreHddNsb4YmPVSOO6061sQayQqK0q+7NLvET7f+H5q0/+SA6A+lq3h8iLDV3hQpvhwjHhpTn6ifLtuC5yLajQ4suEs3aRd6CxJiQm8vrlpTAKrt2yM4iGXSn3vrwZ+ZBHk1GUfcm77sgX/R4BVDrKaNaPdwecnZ61ofovV69nuCqUMJ5W4WWRYCWmN3LZ3NYd6x0170Q1vinwID9yKiUFSXMz3frKJkMkiNFhNUKcJD8Nk+vfghf1s/UoqYInh6lzKDkJnDP7c9/+seB62rwYlOsJxq7gkQMEAqwasx8lQq8HRL53QEQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nxp.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=nxp.com; dkim=pass header.d=nxp.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nxp.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=i9RCvVBNal6gZE4833sG10JAboTx5pfkx3W1BD/RplI=; b=V2lccKqQbCwjzR1oPtiei2Q4jOZ3twrxnSkNpEeHIuTivQfdQ9Q4bpat2y1fT/9vmHHlB4KXobIYMgRWpNYWMUjEAGt4Pd2wmTEuX/q7/4FsrMG5aA3xy1yMrqQ7Dz1trphM5Co2EHUQrJUAqTroDKZEgZ8lLxUq5r7Ot+3AyXU= Received: from VE1PR04MB6639.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (10.255.118.11) by VE1PR04MB6511.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (20.179.233.161) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2305.17; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:43:52 +0000 Received: from VE1PR04MB6639.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c045:5df2:ba1f:c3ee]) by VE1PR04MB6639.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::c045:5df2:ba1f:c3ee%5]) with mapi id 15.20.2305.017; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:43:52 +0000 From: Akhil Goyal To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "'dev@dpdk.org'" , "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" , 'Thomas Monjalon' CC: "Zhang, Roy Fan" , "Doherty, Declan" , 'Anoob Joseph' Thread-Topic: [RFC PATCH 1/9] security: introduce CPU Crypto action type and API Thread-Index: AQHVYm4LqyJkewM9NkuUWAfAmrqx1acbUiZggAAsN4CAAtsIgIAAT02AgAYXC5CAAbSDgIABbRGggAaWxgCAAPjG4IABs/OAgAuzNYCAAoY34IAE8G8AgAAH4mA= Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:43:52 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20190903154046.55992-1-roy.fan.zhang@intel.com> <20190903154046.55992-2-roy.fan.zhang@intel.com> <9F7182E3F746AB4EA17801C148F3C6043369D686@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580191926A17@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580191962CD5@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580191966116@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580191966C23@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258019196A767@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258019196D53D@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258019196D53D@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-IN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=akhil.goyal@nxp.com; x-originating-ip: [92.120.1.65] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0a99ee78-7e71-436f-ed26-08d745ac3b5f x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VE1PR04MB6511: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000; x-forefront-prvs: 01762B0D64 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(39860400002)(366004)(136003)(396003)(376002)(346002)(52314003)(51444003)(199004)(189003)(71200400001)(71190400001)(52536014)(2906002)(229853002)(6436002)(3846002)(30864003)(6116002)(5660300002)(316002)(26005)(186003)(102836004)(54906003)(110136005)(33656002)(486006)(44832011)(476003)(561944003)(446003)(11346002)(99286004)(74316002)(81166006)(81156014)(8676002)(76176011)(7696005)(8936002)(15650500001)(305945005)(6506007)(478600001)(86362001)(14454004)(66066001)(7736002)(66946007)(256004)(66446008)(64756008)(76116006)(66476007)(55016002)(6246003)(4326008)(66556008)(25786009)(9686003)(14444005)(21314003)(491001)(579004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:VE1PR04MB6511; H:VE1PR04MB6639.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nxp.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 1lmexVleg7YpQkFx44gr48xxTg0GqgSSqK1sw4Zpmcv5d42tM1M44VFpHty9Sgn0lRnxWYSvKMkIhuq8y9HnrLz9hB9aYHkhJ13QFeiavEwDPWCosbNChJ6x52pWTw+aG9cKzAoiTrc6xl8FovK0ComuZYoWgcLIffB4t+PBpXxTzsct0XaktWzdzYQ2Nyt36ujqekGwTnfITTZQoMeRw/Es22LeOIxwbWgtdk1l8XndZv5StWMMsLW0pFHinoCDkSIY1KpoXQ3pJ/QB1MgnPP6xd77dTL8wY2UWeNFDbX8c5i0kvZ2dMcLYXytAxTrG+tlDNW8bvFXT66lAfS+RI02NtDp+Wzmh0IUtv+BNQPJThsPRRFVgX+qv33plUvCcECpFdhZoOhMM25ZS9fPLqfyczm3AJXQXfKRQmkpyy8U= x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: nxp.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0a99ee78-7e71-436f-ed26-08d745ac3b5f X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 Sep 2019 13:43:52.7029 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 686ea1d3-bc2b-4c6f-a92c-d99c5c301635 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: tE2EnFkeEC7WznS3X7DNhXlGYhSti5bOvGlTbpfNcM5HOPnGjEnOTCMc9bJUMVa3QG4UHCN1HzW1HIEhoweoEw== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VE1PR04MB6511 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 1/9] security: introduce CPU Crypto action type and API X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi Konstantin, >=20 > Hi Akhil, >=20 > > > > > > > > > > > > This action type allows the burst of symmetric cryp= to > workload > > > using > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > > > > > algorithm, key, and direction being processed by CP= U cycles > > > > > > > > synchronously. > > > > > > > > > > > > This flexible action type does not require external= hardware > > > > > > involvement, > > > > > > > > > > > > having the crypto workload processed synchronously,= and is > > > more > > > > > > > > > > performant > > > > > > > > > > > > than Cryptodev SW PMD due to the saved cycles on re= moved > > > "async > > > > > > > > mode > > > > > > > > > > > > simulation" as well as 3 cacheline access of the cr= ypto ops. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does that mean application will not call the > > > cryptodev_enqueue_burst > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > corresponding dequeue burst. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, instead it just call rte_security_process_cpu_cryp= to_bulk(...) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It would be a new API something like process_packets = and it > will > > > have > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > crypto processed packets while returning from the API? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, though the plan is that API will operate on raw da= ta buffers, > > > not > > > > > > mbufs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I still do not understand why we cannot do with the > conventional > > > > > > crypto lib > > > > > > > > > > only. > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can understand, you are not doing any pro= tocol > > > processing > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > > > > value add > > > > > > > > > > > To the crypto processing. IMO, you just need a synchr= onous > > > crypto > > > > > > > > processing > > > > > > > > > > API which > > > > > > > > > > > Can be defined in cryptodev, you don't need to re-cre= ate a > crypto > > > > > > session > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > the name of > > > > > > > > > > > Security session in the driver just to do a synchrono= us > processing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose your question is why not to have > > > > > > > > > > rte_crypot_process_cpu_crypto_bulk(...) instead? > > > > > > > > > > The main reason is that would require disruptive change= s in > existing > > > > > > > > cryptodev > > > > > > > > > > API > > > > > > > > > > (would cause ABI/API breakage). > > > > > > > > > > Session for RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_CPU_CRYPTO need > > > some > > > > > > extra > > > > > > > > > > information > > > > > > > > > > that normal crypto_sym_xform doesn't contain > > > > > > > > > > (cipher offset from the start of the buffer, might be s= omething > extra > > > in > > > > > > > > future). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cipher offset will be part of rte_crypto_op. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fill/read (+ alloc/free) is one of the main things that slo= wdown > current > > > > > > crypto-op > > > > > > > > approach. > > > > > > > > That's why the general idea - have all data that wouldn't c= hange > from > > > packet > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > packet > > > > > > > > included into the session and setup it once at session_init= (). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that you cannot use crypto-op. > > > > > > > You can have the new API in crypto. > > > > > > > As per the current patch, you only need cipher_offset which y= ou can > have > > > it as > > > > > > a parameter until > > > > > > > You get it approved in the crypto xform. I believe it will be= beneficial > in > > > case of > > > > > > other crypto cases as well. > > > > > > > We can have cipher offset at both places(crypto-op and > cipher_xform). It > > > will > > > > > > give flexibility to the user to > > > > > > > override it. > > > > > > > > > > > > After having another thought on your proposal: > > > > > > Probably we can introduce new rte_crypto_sym_xform_types for CP= U > > > related > > > > > > stuff here? > > > > > > > > > > I also thought of adding new xforms, but that wont serve the purp= ose for > > > may be all the cases. > > > > > You would be needing all information currently available in the c= urrent > > > xforms. > > > > > So if you are adding new fields in the new xform, the size will b= e more > than > > > that of the union of xforms. > > > > > ABI breakage would still be there. > > > > > > > > > > If you think a valid compression of the AEAD xform can be done, t= hen > that > > > can be done for each of the > > > > > Xforms and we can have a solution to this issue. > > > > > > > > I think that we can re-use iv.offset for our purposes (for crypto o= ffset). > > > > So for now we can make that path work without any ABI breakage. > > > > Fan, please feel free to correct me here, if I missed something. > > > > If in future we would need to add some extra information it might > > > > require ABI breakage, though by now I don't envision anything parti= cular to > > > add. > > > > Anyway, if there is no objection to go that way, we can try to make > > > > these changes for v2. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, after looking at it more deeply it appears not that easy as= I thought > it > > > would be :) > > > Below is a very draft version of proposed API additions. > > > I think it avoids ABI breakages right now and provides enough flexibi= lity for > > > future extensions (if any). > > > For now, it doesn't address your comments about naming conventions > (_CPU_ > > > vs _SYNC_) , etc. > > > but I suppose is comprehensive enough to provide a main idea beyond i= t. > > > Akhil and other interested parties, please try to review and provide = feedback > > > ASAP, > > > as related changes would take some time and we still like to hit 19.1= 1 > deadline. > > > Konstantin > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_sym.h > > > b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_sym.h > > > index bc8da2466..c03069e23 100644 > > > --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_sym.h > > > +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_crypto_sym.h > > > @@ -103,6 +103,9 @@ rte_crypto_cipher_operation_strings[]; > > > * > > > * This structure contains data relating to Cipher (Encryption and D= ecryption) > > > * use to create a session. > > > + * Actually I was wrong saying that we don't have free space inside = xforms. > > > + * Making key struct packed (see below) allow us to regain 6B that c= ould be > > > + * used for future extensions. > > > */ > > > struct rte_crypto_cipher_xform { > > > enum rte_crypto_cipher_operation op; > > > @@ -116,7 +119,25 @@ struct rte_crypto_cipher_xform { > > > struct { > > > const uint8_t *data; /**< pointer to key data */ > > > uint16_t length; /**< key length in bytes */ > > > - } key; > > > + } __attribute__((__packed__)) key; > > > + > > > + /** > > > + * offset for cipher to start within user provided data buff= er. > > > + * Fan suggested another (and less space consuming way) - > > > + * reuse iv.offset space below, by changing: > > > + * struct {uint16_t offset, length;} iv; > > > + * to uunamed union: > > > + * union { > > > + * struct {uint16_t offset, length;} iv; > > > + * struct {uint16_t iv_len, crypto_offset} cpu_crypto_pa= ram; > > > + * }; > > > + * Both approaches seems ok to me in general. > > > > No strong opinions here. OK with this one. > > > > > + * Comments/suggestions are welcome. > > > + */ > > > + uint16_t offset; >=20 > After another thought - it is probably a bit better to have offset as a s= eparate > field. > In that case we can use the same xforms to create both type of sessions. ok >=20 > > > + > > > + uint8_t reserved1[4]; > > > + > > > /**< Cipher key > > > * > > > * For the RTE_CRYPTO_CIPHER_AES_F8 mode of operation, key.da= ta > will > > > @@ -284,7 +305,7 @@ struct rte_crypto_auth_xform { > > > struct { > > > const uint8_t *data; /**< pointer to key data */ > > > uint16_t length; /**< key length in bytes */ > > > - } key; > > > + } __attribute__((__packed__)) key; > > > /**< Authentication key data. > > > * The authentication key length MUST be less than or equal t= o the > > > * block size of the algorithm. It is the callers responsibil= ity to > > > @@ -292,6 +313,8 @@ struct rte_crypto_auth_xform { > > > * (for example RFC 2104, FIPS 198a). > > > */ > > > > > > + uint8_t reserved1[6]; > > > + > > > struct { > > > uint16_t offset; > > > /**< Starting point for Initialisation Vector or Coun= ter, > > > @@ -376,7 +399,12 @@ struct rte_crypto_aead_xform { > > > struct { > > > const uint8_t *data; /**< pointer to key data */ > > > uint16_t length; /**< key length in bytes */ > > > - } key; > > > + } __attribute__((__packed__)) key; > > > + > > > + /** offset for cipher to start within data buffer */ > > > + uint16_t cipher_offset; > > > + > > > + uint8_t reserved1[4]; > > > > > > struct { > > > uint16_t offset; > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h > > > b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h > > > index e175b838c..c0c7bfed7 100644 > > > --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h > > > +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h > > > @@ -1272,6 +1272,101 @@ void * > > > rte_cryptodev_sym_session_get_user_data( > > > struct rte_cryptodev_sym_sess= ion *sess); > > > > > > +/* > > > + * After several thoughts decided not to try to squeeze CPU_CRYPTO > > > + * into existing rte_crypto_sym_session structure/API, but instead > > > + * introduce an extentsion to it via new fully opaque > > > + * struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session and additional related API. > > > > > > What all things do we need to squeeze? > > In this proposal I do not see the new struct cpu_sym_session defined h= ere. >=20 > The plan is to have it totally opaque to the user, i.e. just: > struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session; > in public header files. >=20 > > I believe you will have same lib API/struct for cpu_sym_session and > sym_session. >=20 > I thought about such way, but there are few things that looks clumsy to m= e: > 1. Right now there is no 'type' (or so) field inside rte_cryptodev_sym_se= ssion, > so it is not possible to easy distinguish what session do you have: lksd_= sym or > cpu_sym. > In theory, there is a hole of 4B inside rte_cryptodev_sym_session, so we = can add > some extra field > here, but in that case we wouldn't be able to use the same xform for bot= h > lksd_sym or cpu_sym > (which seems really plausible thing for me). > 2. Majority of rte_cryptodev_sym_session fields I think are unnecessary = for > rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session: > sess_data[], opaque_data, user_data, nb_drivers. > All that consumes space, that could be used somewhere else instead. > 3. I am a bit reluctant to touch existing rte_cryptodev API - to avoid an= y > breakages I can't foresee right now. > From other side - if we'll add new functions/structs for cpu_sym_session = we can > mark it > and keep it for some time as experimental, so further changes (if needed)= would > still be possible. >=20 OK let us assume that you have a separate structure. But I have a few queri= es: 1. how can multiple drivers use a same session 2. Can somebody use the scheduler pmd for scheduling the different type of = payloads for the same session? With your proposal the APIs would be very specific to your use case only. When you would add more functionality to this sync API/struct, it will end = up being the same API/struct. Let us see how close/ far we are from the existing APIs when the actual im= plementation is done. > > I am not sure if that would be needed. > > It would be internal to the driver that if synchronous processing is > supported(from feature flag) and > > Have relevant fields in xform(the newly added ones which are packed as = per > your suggestions) set, > > It will create that type of session. > > > > > > > + * Main points: > > > + * - Current crypto-dev API is reasonably mature and it is desirable > > > + * to keep it unchanged (API/ABI stability). From other side, this > > > + * new sync API is new one and probably would require extra change= s. > > > + * Having it as a new one allows to mark it as experimental, witho= ut > > > + * affecting existing one. > > > + * - Fully opaque cpu_sym_session structure gives more flexibility > > > + * to the PMD writers and again allows to avoid ABI breakages in f= uture. > > > + * - process() function per set of xforms > > > + * allows to expose different process() functions for different > > > + * xform combinations. PMD writer can decide, does he wants to > > > + * push all supported algorithms into one process() function, > > > + * or spread it across several ones. > > > + * I.E. More flexibility for PMD writer. > > > > Which process function should be chosen is internal to PMD, how would t= hat > info > > be visible to the application or the library. These will get stored in = the session > private > > data. It would be upto the PMD writer, to store the per session process > function in > > the session private data. > > > > Process function would be a dev ops just like enc/deq operations and it= should > call > > The respective process API stored in the session private data. >=20 > That model (via devops) is possible, but has several drawbacks from my > perspective: >=20 > 1. It means we'll need to pass dev_id as a parameter to process() functio= n. > Though in fact dev_id is not a relevant information for us here > (all we need is pointer to the session and pointer to the fuction to call= ) > and I tried to avoid using it in data-path functions for that API. You have a single vdev, but someone may have multiple vdevs for each thread= , or may Have same dev with multiple queues for each core. > 2. As you pointed in that case it will be just one process() function per= device. > So if PMD would like to have several process() functions for different ty= pe of > sessions > (let say one per alg) first thing it has to do inside it's process() - re= ad session data > and > based on that, do a jump/call to particular internal sub-routine. > Something like: > driver_id =3D get_pmd_driver_id(); > priv_ses =3D ses->sess_data[driver_id]; > Then either: > switch(priv_sess->alg) {case XXX: process_XXX(priv_sess, ...);break;...} > OR > priv_ses->process(priv_sess, ...); >=20 > to select and call the proper function. > Looks like totally unnecessary overhead to me. > Though if we'll have ability to query/extract some sort session_ops based= on the > xform - > we can avoid this extra de-refererence+jump/call thing. What is the issue in the priv_ses->process(); approach? I don't understand what are you saving by not doing this. In any case you would need to identify which session correspond to which pr= ocess(). For that you would be doing it somewhere in your data path. >=20 > > > > I am not sure if you would need a new session init API for this as noth= ing would > be visible to > > the app or lib. > > > > > + * - Not storing process() pointer inside the session - > > > + * Allows user to choose does he want to store a process() pointer > > > + * per session, or per group of sessions for that device that shar= e > > > + * the same input xforms. I.E. extra flexibility for the user, > > > + * plus allows us to keep cpu_sym_session totally opaque, see abov= e. > > > > If multiple sessions need to be processed via the same process function= , > > PMD would save the same process in all the sessions, I don't think ther= e would > > be any perf overhead with that. >=20 > I think it would, see above. >=20 > > > > > + * Sketched usage model: > > > + * .... > > > + * /* control path, alloc/init session */ > > > + * int32_t sz =3D rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_size(dev_id, &xform); > > > + * struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *ses =3D user_alloc(..., sz); > > > + * rte_crypto_cpu_sym_process_t process =3D > > > + * rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_func(dev_id, &xform); > > > + * rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_init(dev_id, ses, &xform); > > > + * ... > > > + * /* data-path*/ > > > + * process(ses, ....); > > > + * .... > > > + * /* control path, termiante/free session */ > > > + * rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_fini(dev_id, ses); > > > + */ > > > + > > > +/** > > > + * vector structure, contains pointer to vector array and the length > > > + * of the array > > > + */ > > > +struct rte_crypto_vec { > > > + struct iovec *vec; > > > + uint32_t num; > > > +}; > > > + > > > +/* > > > + * Data-path bulk process crypto function. > > > + */ > > > +typedef void (*rte_crypto_cpu_sym_process_t)( > > > + struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *sess, > > > + struct rte_crypto_vec buf[], void *iv[], void *aad[], > > > + void *digest[], int status[], uint32_t num); > > > +/* > > > + * for given device return process function specific to input xforms > > > + * on error - return NULL and set rte_errno value. > > > + * Note that for same input xfroms for the same device should return > > > + * the same process function. > > > + */ > > > +__rte_experimental > > > +rte_crypto_cpu_sym_process_t > > > +rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_func(uint8_t dev_id, > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xforms); > > > + > > > +/* > > > + * Return required session size in bytes for given set of xforms. > > > + * if xforms =3D=3D NULL, then return the max possible session size, > > > + * that would fit session for any supported by the device algorithm. > > > + * if CPU mode is not supported at all, or requeted in xform > > > + * algorithm is not supported, then return -ENOTSUP. > > > + */ > > > +__rte_experimental > > > +int > > > +rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_size(uint8_t dev_id, > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xforms); > > > + > > > +/* > > > + * Initialize session. > > > + * It is caller responsibility to allocate enough space for it. > > > + * See rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_size above. > > > + */ > > > +__rte_experimental > > > +int rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_init(uint8_t dev_id, > > > + struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *sess, > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xforms); > > > + > > > +__rte_experimental > > > +void > > > +rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session_fini(uint8_t dev_id, > > > + struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *sess); > > > + > > > + > > > #ifdef __cplusplus > > > } > > > #endif > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_pmd.h > > > b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_pmd.h > > > index defe05ea0..ed7e63fab 100644 > > > --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_pmd.h > > > +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_pmd.h > > > @@ -310,6 +310,20 @@ typedef void > (*cryptodev_sym_free_session_t)(struct > > > rte_cryptodev *dev, > > > typedef void (*cryptodev_asym_free_session_t)(struct rte_cryptodev *= dev, > > > struct rte_cryptodev_asym_session *sess); > > > > > > +typedef int (*cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_size_t) (struct rte_cryptode= v > *dev, > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xforms); > > > + > > > +typedef int (*cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_init_t) (struct rte_cryptode= v > *dev, > > > + struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *sess, > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xforms); > > > + > > > +typedef void (*cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_fini_t) (struct rte_cryptod= ev > *dev, > > > + struct rte_crypto_cpu_sym_session *sess); > > > + > > > +typedef rte_crypto_cpu_sym_process_t > (*cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_func_t) > > > ( > > > + struct rte_cryptodev *dev, > > > + const struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xforms); > > > + > > > /** Crypto device operations function pointer table */ > > > struct rte_cryptodev_ops { > > > cryptodev_configure_t dev_configure; /**< Configure device= . */ > > > @@ -343,6 +357,11 @@ struct rte_cryptodev_ops { > > > /**< Clear a Crypto sessions private data. */ > > > cryptodev_asym_free_session_t asym_session_clear; > > > /**< Clear a Crypto sessions private data. */ > > > + > > > + cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_size_t sym_cpu_session_get_size; > > > + cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_func_t sym_cpu_session_get_func; > > > + cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_init_t sym_cpu_session_init; > > > + cryptodev_cpu_sym_session_fini_t sym_cpu_session_fini; > > > }; > > > > > > > > >