Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/8] security: add cpu crypto action type

[Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>]

Hi Marcin/Konstantin,

> Introduce CPU crypto action type allowing to differentiate between
> regular async 'none security' and synchronous, CPU crypto accelerated
> sessions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marcin Smoczynski <marcinx.smoczynski@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zhang@intel.com>
> ---
>  lib/librte_security/rte_security.h | 8 ++++++--
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.h b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.h
> index 546779df2..c8b2dd5ed 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.h
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
>  /* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
>   * Copyright 2017,2019 NXP
> - * Copyright(c) 2017 Intel Corporation.
> + * Copyright(c) 2017-2020 Intel Corporation.
>   */
> 
>  #ifndef _RTE_SECURITY_H_
> @@ -307,10 +307,14 @@ enum rte_security_session_action_type {
>  	/**< All security protocol processing is performed inline during
>  	 * transmission
>  	 */
> -	RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_LOOKASIDE_PROTOCOL
> +	RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_LOOKASIDE_PROTOCOL,
>  	/**< All security protocol processing including crypto is performed
>  	 * on a lookaside accelerator
>  	 */
> +	RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_CPU_CRYPTO
> +	/**< Crypto processing for security protocol is processed by CPU
> +	 * synchronously
> +	 */
I am not able to see the need for this enum.

It is used by the app and ipsec library to identify the cpu-crypto codepath.

I don't see any security action been performed for this action_type.

This enum is just like NONE which is not used beyond the application/lib.
I think this needs to be documented properly in the description of the enum.

It should be something like

Similar to ACTION_TYPE_NONE, but the crypto processing is done on CPU
Synchronously.

Also add documentation of this in the rte_security.rst in this patch only.
There should not be any separate patch for documentation.

Regards,
Akhil