From: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
To: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>,
Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: <declan.doherty@intel.com>, <hemant.agrawal@nxp.com>,
<zbigniew.bodek@caviumnetworks.com>,
<jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] [RFC] cryptodev: crypto operation restructuring
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 13:08:39 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c40cee6a-8ea1-8959-37ff-77d2df53b759@nxp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b796e19a-8102-de99-3f34-0050d47f5afe@intel.com>
On 5/4/2017 1:01 PM, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote:
> On 04/05/2017 07:09, Akhil Goyal wrote:
>> Hi Sergio,
>>
>> On 5/3/2017 7:48 PM, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy wrote:
>>> On 03/05/2017 12:01, Akhil Goyal wrote:
>>>> Hi Pablo,
>>>>
>>>> On 4/28/2017 11:33 PM, Pablo de Lara wrote:
>>>>> This is a proposal to correct and improve the current crypto
>>>>> operation (rte_crypto_op)
>>>>> and symmetric crypto operation (rte_crypto_sym_op) structures,
>>>>> shrinking
>>>>> their sizes to fit both structures into two 64-byte cache lines as
>>>>> one of the goals.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following changes are proposed:
>>>>>
>>>>> In rte_crypto_op:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Move session type (with session/sessionless) from symmetric op to
>>>>> crypto op,
>>>>> as this could be used for other types
>>>>>
>>>>> - Combine operation type, operation status and session type into a
>>>>> 64-bit flag (each one taking 1 byte),
>>>>> instead of having enums taking 4 bytes each
>>>> [Akhil] wouldn't this be a problem? Bit fields create endianness
>>>> issues. Can we have uint8_t for each of the field.
>>>
>>> Sure, as it is proposed it would be the same as having 3 uint8_t fields.
>>> The idea was to possibly compact those fields (ie. we do not need 8 bits
>>> for sess_type) to make better use of the bits and add asym fields there
>>> if needed.
>>>
>>> I don't think bitfields would be a problem in this case. Agree, we
>>> should not use both bitmask and bitfields, but we would use just
>>> bitfields.
>>> Can you elaborate on the issue you see?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Sergio
>>>
>>
>> The problem will come when we run on systems with different
>> endianness. The bit field positioning will be different for LE and BE.
>> It would be like in LE
>> uint64_t type:8;
>> uint64_t status:8;
>> uint64_t sess_type:8;
>> uint64_t reserved:40;
>>
>> and on BE it would be
>> uint64_t reserved:40;
>> uint64_t sess_type:8;
>> uint64_t status:8;
>> uint64_t type:8;
>>
>> So it would be better to use uint8_t for each of the field.
>
> Understood, but why is that an issue? Those fields are used by
> application code and PMD, same system.
> Do you have a use case where you are offloading crypto ops to a
> different arch/system?
>
> Sergio
same application may run on LE or BE machines. So if we use masks for
accessing these fields and take the complete field as uint64_t, then LE
and BE machine would interpret it differently as the code is same.
Akhil
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Remove opaque data from crypto operation, as private data can be
>>>>> allocated
>>>>> just after the symmetric (or other type) crypto operation
>>>>>
>>>>> - Modify symmetric operation pointer to zero-array, as the symmetric
>>>>> op should be always after the crypto operation
>>>>>
>>>>> In rte_crypto_sym_xform:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Remove AAD length from sym_xform (will be taken from operation only)
>>>>>
>>>>> - Add IV length in sym_xform, so this length will be fixed for all
>>>>> the operations in a session
>>>> A much needed change. This would remove hard codings for iv length
>>>> while configuring sessions.
>>>>>
>>>>> In rte_crypto_sym_op:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Separate IV from cipher structure in symmetric crypto operation, as
>>>>> it is also used in authentication, for some algorithms
>>>>>
>>>>> - Remove IV pointer and length from sym crypto op, and leave just the
>>>>> offset (from the beginning of the crypto operation),
>>>>> as the IV can reside after the crypto operation
>>>>>
>>>>> - Create union with authentication data and AAD, as these two values
>>>>> cannot be used at the same time
>>>> [Akhil] Does this mean, in case of AEAD, additional authentication
>>>> data and auth data are contiguous as we do not have explicit auth data
>>>> offset here.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Remove digest length from sym crypto op, so this length will be
>>>>> fixed for all the operations in a session
>>>>>
>>>>> - Add zero-array at the end of sym crypto op to be used to get extra
>>>>> allocated memory (IV + other user data)
>>>>>
>>>>> Previous rte_crypto_op (40 bytes) and rte_crypto_sym_op (114 bytes)
>>>>> structures:
>>>>>
>>>>> struct rte_crypto_op {
>>>>> enum rte_crypto_op_type type;
>>>>>
>>>>> enum rte_crypto_op_status status;
>>>>>
>>>>> struct rte_mempool *mempool;
>>>>>
>>>>> phys_addr_t phys_addr;
>>>>>
>>>>> void *opaque_data;
>>>>>
>>>>> union {
>>>>> struct rte_crypto_sym_op *sym;
>>>>> };
>>>>> } __rte_cache_aligned;
>>>>>
>>>>> struct rte_crypto_sym_op {
>>>>> struct rte_mbuf *m_src;
>>>>> struct rte_mbuf *m_dst;
>>>>>
>>>>> enum rte_crypto_sym_op_sess_type sess_type;
>>>>>
>>>>> RTE_STD_C11
>>>>> union {
>>>>> struct rte_cryptodev_sym_session *session;
>>>>> struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xform;
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> struct {
>>>>> struct {
>>>>> uint32_t offset;
>>>>> uint32_t length;
>>>>> } data;
>>>>>
>>>>> struct {
>>>>> uint8_t *data;
>>>>> phys_addr_t phys_addr;
>>>>> uint16_t length;
>>>>> } iv;
>>>>> } cipher;
>>>>>
>>>>> struct {
>>>>> struct {
>>>>> uint32_t offset;
>>>>> uint32_t length;
>>>>> } data;
>>>>> struct {
>>>>> uint8_t *data;
>>>>> phys_addr_t phys_addr;
>>>>> uint16_t length;
>>>>> } digest; /**< Digest parameters */
>>>>>
>>>>> struct {
>>>>> uint8_t *data;
>>>>> phys_addr_t phys_addr;
>>>>> uint16_t length;
>>>>> } aad;
>>>>>
>>>>> } auth;
>>>>> } __rte_cache_aligned;
>>>>>
>>>>> New rte_crypto_op (24 bytes) and rte_crypto_sym_op (72 bytes)
>>>>> structures:
>>>>>
>>>>> struct rte_crypto_op {
>>>>> uint64_t type: 8;
>>>>> uint64_t status: 8;
>>>>> uint64_t sess_type: 8;
>>>>>
>>>>> struct rte_mempool *mempool;
>>>>>
>>>>> phys_addr_t phys_addr;
>>>>>
>>>>> RTE_STD_C11
>>>>> union {
>>>>> struct rte_crypto_sym_op sym[0];
>>>>> };
>>>>> } __rte_cache_aligned;
>>>>>
>>>>> struct rte_crypto_sym_op {
>>>>> struct rte_mbuf *m_src;
>>>>> struct rte_mbuf *m_dst;
>>>>>
>>>>> RTE_STD_C11
>>>>> union {
>>>>> struct rte_cryptodev_sym_session *session;
>>>>> struct rte_crypto_sym_xform *xform;
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> struct {
>>>>> uint8_t offset;
>>>>> } iv;
>>>>>
>>>>> struct {
>>>>> union {
>>>>> struct {
>>>>> uint32_t offset;
>>>>> uint32_t length;
>>>>> } data;
>>>>> struct {
>>>>> uint32_t length;
>>>>> uint8_t *data;
>>>>> phys_addr_t phys_addr;
>>>>> } aad;
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> struct {
>>>>> uint8_t *data;
>>>>> phys_addr_t phys_addr;
>>>>> } digest;
>>>>>
>>>>> } auth;
>>>>> struct {
>>>>> struct {
>>>>> uint32_t offset;
>>>>> uint32_t length;
>>>>> } data;
>>>>>
>>>>> } cipher;
>>>>>
>>>>> __extension__ char _private[0];
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Comments inline.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Akhil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-04 7:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-28 18:03 Pablo de Lara
2017-05-03 11:01 ` Akhil Goyal
2017-05-03 14:18 ` Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2017-05-04 6:09 ` Akhil Goyal
2017-05-04 7:31 ` Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2017-05-04 7:38 ` Akhil Goyal [this message]
2017-05-04 8:19 ` Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2017-05-04 11:23 ` Akhil Goyal
2017-05-04 16:20 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c40cee6a-8ea1-8959-37ff-77d2df53b759@nxp.com \
--to=akhil.goyal@nxp.com \
--cc=declan.doherty@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=hemant.agrawal@nxp.com \
--cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com \
--cc=sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com \
--cc=zbigniew.bodek@caviumnetworks.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).