From: Declan Doherty <declan.doherty@intel.com>
To: "Trahe, Fiona" <fiona.trahe@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>,
"stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] lib/cryptodev: fix API digest length comments
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:55:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <055fc31d-0e29-6693-7b14-f57a4e419f6f@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <348A99DA5F5B7549AA880327E580B435891ECAE9@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com>
On 28/04/2017 2:38 PM, Trahe, Fiona wrote:
> Hi Declan,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
...
>> I don't think this comment change is valid, we already validate many of
>> the parameters which are passed into session creation, such as key
>> lengths etc, if we are not validating digest length now I think we
>> should be, maybe this is a gap in our unit tests.
>>
> Neither the API nor any of the PMDs validate the digest_length at present.
> I agree, they probably should, but it's a bit late to add this in 17.05,
> as it would be quite a bit of code churn, each PMD would have to check
> against the range in their Capabilities structure.
> So the next best thing for this release in my opinion is to remove the comment as
> it is misleading and out of sync with the implementation.
> In the next release we should remove the comments saying it's the callers
> responsibility from both digest_length and auth key length and add
> the param checks to each PMD.
Oh, I guess it's better to make the comment reflect the current
implementation and then fix in next release.
>
....
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-28 14:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-25 16:56 Fiona Trahe
2017-04-28 9:21 ` Declan Doherty
2017-04-28 13:38 ` Trahe, Fiona
2017-04-28 14:55 ` Declan Doherty [this message]
2017-04-28 14:56 ` Declan Doherty
2017-04-28 15:44 ` 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=055fc31d-0e29-6693-7b14-f57a4e419f6f@intel.com \
--to=declan.doherty@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=fiona.trahe@intel.com \
--cc=pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
/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).