Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] maintainers: update for armv8 crypto library

[Honnappa Nagarahalli <Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>]

> > > From: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
> > >
> > > Update the armv8 crypto PMD maintainership.
> > >
> > > https://github.com/caviumnetworks/armv8_crypto external crypto the
> > > library will not be maintained and probably removed soon therefor
> > > updating the PMD documentation to reflect the same.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > This patch is based on the discussion of the following thread
> > > http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-October/146005.html
> > >
> > > In summary,
> > > # ARMv8 crypto PMD depends on an external library owned by Marvell,
> > > specifically crafted to the DPDK performance use case.
> > > # There is no upstream path to this library and it will not be
> > > maintained due to that fact that it
> > > a) Creates fragmentation of the SW
> > > b) Contribution policy concerning external Github Repos
> > > c) None other than Marvell can contribute to this library and this
> > > makes difficult for other stakeholder to use it.
> > >
> > > # As the maintainer, I would like to make forward progress by
> > > providing the following options. None of the options are converging
> > > as the result I would like to step down from the maintainership of
> > > the incomplete PMD as I don't see any options for collaboration,
> > > improvement in the library nor follows the open source philosophy in the
> way it is structured out now.
> > >
> > > option 1) Move external library(BSD-3 license) to dpdk.org so that
> > > every armv8 vendors can contribute, improve and avoid SW
> > > fragmentation and therefore better quality.
> > I do not see any issues with this approach. This patch should be changed to
> reflect this option?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In past, there was a concern with this approach about maintaining the
> assembly code in dpdk.org. Is this concern still valid?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > option 2) If option 1 is not possible, remove the incomplete PMD
> > > from dpdk.org and maintain the existing PMD as the external one by each
> vendor.
> > > This won't change much in the existing situation as this PMD is not
> > > standalone and anyway depended on an external code base.
> > IMHO, DPDK defines an interface to integrate an external crypto library. This
> might be under use by applications. Removing the PMD will break those
> applications.
> >
> >
> >
> > DPDK does not define any such interface. It was pushed to external library for
> the reason mentioned above.
> >
> > [Honnappa] So, what should an application which has its own crypto library
> do when the PMD is removed?
> >
> >
> >
> > If no one is ready to host the actual code, how is even possible to have
> floating PMD which can not even  build by community.
> >
> > [Honnappa] I am trying to understand your comment. Are you saying without
> the actual crypto library how do we build/test the PMD?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Is it ok to introduce a stub library which is used if
> ‘ARMV8_CRYPTO_LIB_PATH’ is not set. Such stub should not be subjected to
> export license issues.
> 
> It won't be even functional. Right? and we really don't know, do we really have
> an export license issue or not?
Agree, stub is to just ensure that the PMD to lib interface is functional.
The export license issue need to be explored. Does this need to go to LF legal?

> 
> Having said that, I have no issues if we choose to go with stub model provided
> this document patch is accepted.
Stub should be the last option, only if we run out of other options as it will preserve only the PMD in DPDK.
IMO, we still have not reached a conclusion. I think following questions need to be answered:
1) The discussion on whether it should be part of DPDK still not concluded (export license issues should come after this)
2) What are the export licensing issues in the context of DPDK as an open source project?
3) Can it be a 'hosted-project' (similar to pkt-gen etc)?

> 
> >
> >
> >
> > I propose to take this to TB to reach to consensus as we are going in circles in
> mailing list.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I am glad/help to execute option 1 or 2 or help to a new maintainer
> > > if he/she would like to step up and take ownership.
> > >
> > > ---
> > >  MAINTAINERS                     | 1 -
> > >  doc/guides/cryptodevs/armv8.rst | 3 +--
> > >  2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS index b02066270..8096d93c4
> > > 100644
> > > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > > @@ -918,7 +918,6 @@ F: doc/guides/cryptodevs/ccp.rst
> > >  F: doc/guides/cryptodevs/features/ccp.ini
> > >
> > >  ARMv8 Crypto
> > > -M: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>
> > >  F: drivers/crypto/armv8/
> > >  F: doc/guides/cryptodevs/armv8.rst
> > >  F: doc/guides/cryptodevs/features/armv8.ini
> > > diff --git a/doc/guides/cryptodevs/armv8.rst
> > > b/doc/guides/cryptodevs/armv8.rst index 1ab40096e..ada2a774d 100644
> > > --- a/doc/guides/cryptodevs/armv8.rst
> > > +++ b/doc/guides/cryptodevs/armv8.rst
> > > @@ -28,8 +28,7 @@ Installation
> > >
> > >  In order to enable this virtual crypto PMD, user must:
> > >
> > > -* Download ARMv8 crypto library source code from
> > > -  `here <https://github.com/caviumnetworks/armv8_crypto>`_
> > > +* Use ARMv8 crypto library source code from vendor SDK
> > >
> > >  * Export the environmental variable ARMV8_CRYPTO_LIB_PATH with
> > >    the path where the ``armv8_crypto`` library was downloaded
> > > --
> > > 2.23.0