Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] test/crypto: change cipher offset for esn vector

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

> >
> > > >> >Why do we need this change?
> > > >> >The existing test case is to demonstrate a generic case where we
> > > >> >can have an auth only trailer as well. It is similar to a case of
> > > >> >IPSEC ESN but not exactly IPSec. Cipher offset can be anything as
> > > >> >per the app
> > > >requirement.
> > > >> >I don't think there is anything wrong in the vector. It should
> > > >> >pass in every hardware without any issue.
> > > >> [Ankur] It's a limitation in OCTEON TX PMDs that the (encr offset -
> > > >> auth offset) should be 8 bytes aligned.
> > > >> In the IPSEC ESN scenario generally the offsets will be such.
> > > >> But in the above IPSEC ESN test vector, this requirement is not met
> > > >> and hence the associated test cases fails on the PMD.
> > > >
> > > >In that case, I think it is better to have a separate test vector and
> > > >both should be executed. With the previous one as not supported in
> > > >your case and this one will be supported.
> > > [Ankur] The offsets values are present per crypto operation. So to
> > > make these tests as unsupported the pmd datapath needs to be changed.
> > > Is there an alternative to make these tests unsupported?
> >
> > I believe this is a data path error and a limitation in your PMD.
> > You can not stop the application writer from using unaligned cipher
> > offsets(non-8 byte aligned)
> 
> [Anoob] Yes. But the typical case with IPsec is what is supported in the PMD.
> 
> >
> > This is just a test application, which may hide your PMD limitation by
> > accepting this patch But in actual the scenario will fail when some user
> > configures a 12B cipher offset.
> 
> [Anoob] Agreed. But autotest having a failure is not an ideal situation to be it.
> Especially when it's not the typical usage. Can I propose to add a field like "Know
> Issues:" in the summary field? We can add a check for OCTEONTX PMDs in the
> test case and mark it as a known case. I do understand that the vision was to
> remove all driver specific tests and have generic tests for all PMDs, but here we
> are left with no other option. Chances are, other PMDs also could have similar
> limitations when moving to generic framework.
> 
> If you have suggestions to skip this test in any other way, that would also work
> for us.
> 

I don't see there is a straight forward way for skipping this test, but we cannot allow
PMD specific checks going further.
If you are not ready to accept this failure case, I am ok to take this patch as is.
I believe it will hide your PMD limitation and may come up
As a surprise to your customers if they start using non-8 byte aligned cipher offset.

Applied to dpdk-next-crypto

Thanks.

> > IMO, you should add a new test vector instead of replacing this one and it
> > should Be OK to have the existing one fail in your case.
> >