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 11:39:57 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <152e5bc5-26b3-2505-f5b7-842652110641@nxp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <058e6ed7-9404-1333-31be-c389fe08d246@intel.com>
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.
>>>
>>> - 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 6:10 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 [this message]
2017-05-04 7:31 ` Sergio Gonzalez Monroy
2017-05-04 7:38 ` Akhil Goyal
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=152e5bc5-26b3-2505-f5b7-842652110641@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).