From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 249D1A00BE for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:21:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623391E53D; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:21:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.206]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5881DFE7 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:21:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6143C579 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 16:21:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu Received: from mta-p6.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p6.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OZAIWAmacRPE for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:21:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail-yw1-f69.google.com (mail-yw1-f69.google.com [209.85.161.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p6.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F14BD16 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:21:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail-yw1-f69.google.com with SMTP id c189so7614710ywe.18 for ; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:21:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=6fZ12R1uR5WsUKrMabOpniRfLwViNoH2YlZ+mrcvTUs=; b=mxkL8RdDIm54mflfWsa+HvyjZUq6jqsz8KJG1QxlWHmg25DfCo4hYJo9c3ydt7nyLV c4cfX5tJUI39oJ9pXUh92J+s2PemzcZRmfnVfVJ8sKT1Ti3jJyOnTRGh0brOFsUMLxSp AcDWGJtELlk152pSj6GuPVHSgHVEpQf4XqlK5vkQ0ZX/mj0vk1IAT/+8x3fPTmZWzjVu W2Pmd/rJ4SGNY4fQJHDjsGXdQkJHPYHgxLzC1w2lhnJMyGv0dQMJG9UxJrO5dplOqnOP y3byPNfHEmzk78GCSZsbR//tIxNG1LmMIjwPG7karJy5ksaDeteTRYGsOhqctVel0ua3 ByNw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=6fZ12R1uR5WsUKrMabOpniRfLwViNoH2YlZ+mrcvTUs=; b=XqsQURGihIrYD+JILntO290X3YWspEsksQ8cCcOMuzLWYMbwNeWz0CQEGthPuKnt7F akVMdl/Ert8RkH6FegIRoqkB9GgQAUXFOZmdyf5nW6DjUqHb5zSeNLrX0O4ltpave70V 8Ij00aelFHoQ49TydIziSWedaHHvj1rocwY8j5IVCO7J6G6mRquzo5iM0dIAZ8Lrfcxg v3x6acMAq/kMDj9D36cHME270EDXnhOKrok0sLSB/S2m7UFf9Gv2nbhidJg3uJZ3oCKG cTHrQlxbc16pUK9TylIIjbExQib4QJgVRgafGrAXZmSwBQ3CXP/DDVCMBHOvZIPZynTN W1Gw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXES4mPT42Xb+/ncvgJ2Bah7M/TEvMbdnp/6T0D1erhFYCB0bj4 bU2zYJlr3gq0jwB+VL6IRWVcyvVGeA7TPdHV22Xw0EuYs+pVPzlcSawjhea3El1ogMuCLUcFLgW wZ7ziJjgirfsHlrkEJJfr5vGBPA== X-Received: by 2002:a81:3497:: with SMTP id b145mr8699864ywa.315.1572625285390; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:21:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzD57Ytlocu8HiN+YRGm8X/Cba7RbIcp6WbHwJwid7FMPuZEOi7iodXvOHKqeLGHOnuffULuTRp7CvwolGcTi4= X-Received: by 2002:a81:3497:: with SMTP id b145mr8699835ywa.315.1572625284909; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:21:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Eric Kuha Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 11:21:14 -0500 Message-ID: To: users@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: [dpdk-users] Cryptodev asymmetric encryption X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "users" Hello, I am working with a team at U of MN on a DPDK-based project. We are using DPDK 18.11, with Mellanox Connect X-5 EN NICs and mlx5 driver. Not sure what other details you might need to help me, but I think my question is straightforward enough. In the cryptodev library, the function rte_cryptodev_asym_get_private_session_size() is flagged as __rte_experimental. CLion interprets this as deprecated, which is probably neither here nor there. My question is, is this method safe to use? If my goal is simply a proof-of-concept network function (of which asymmetric crypto is a crucial part), am I safe to use the code used in the examples and the programmer's guide? If this functionality is going to move out of an experimental phase, are they likely to change in significant ways that would make my code unusable if it ever makes it to a deployable state? And, as a final thought, are any functions listed as __rte_experimental considered unsafe for deployment? It might not be an issue for my project, but it might be useful to know. Kind regards and thanks, Eric