DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Anoob <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com>
To: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>,
	Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com>,
	 Declan Doherty <declan.doherty@intel.com>,
	Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>,
	Narayana Prasad <narayanaprasad.athreya@caviumnetworks.com>,
	dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] lib/security: add support for get metadata
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:13:00 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <849074b1-b46a-08fe-c1ad-86f4e603900b@caviumnetworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a5b29a11-f8ae-1c53-2d8c-ea880c1f7027@caviumnetworks.com>

Hi Akhil, Radu,

Is there any update on how we should approach this?

Thanks,

Anoob


On 11/24/2017 05:52 PM, Anoob wrote:
> Hi Akhil, Radu
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Anoob
>
>
> On 11/24/2017 05:04 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
>> Hi Radu,
>> On 11/24/2017 4:47 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/24/2017 10:55 AM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
>>>> On 11/24/2017 3:09 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Comment inline
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/24/2017 8:50 AM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Anoob, Radu,
>>>>>> On 11/23/2017 4:49 PM, Anoob Joseph wrote:
>>>>>>> In case of inline protocol processed ingress traffic, the packet 
>>>>>>> may not
>>>>>>> have enough information to determine the security parameters 
>>>>>>> with which
>>>>>>> the packet was processed. In such cases, application could get 
>>>>>>> metadata
>>>>>>> from the packet which could be used to identify the security 
>>>>>>> parameters
>>>>>>> with which the packet was processed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> v3:
>>>>>>> * Replaced 64 bit metadata in conf with (void *)userdata
>>>>>>> * The API(rte_security_get_pkt_metadata) would return void * 
>>>>>>> instead of
>>>>>>>    uint64_t
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> v2:
>>>>>>> * Replaced get_session and get_cookie APIs with get_pkt_metadata 
>>>>>>> API
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   lib/librte_security/rte_security.c        | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>>>>>   lib/librte_security/rte_security.h        | 19 
>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>   lib/librte_security/rte_security_driver.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>   3 files changed, 48 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c 
>>>>>>> b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
>>>>>>> index 1227fca..a1d78b6 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c
>>>>>>> @@ -108,6 +108,19 @@ rte_security_set_pkt_metadata(struct 
>>>>>>> rte_security_ctx *instance,
>>>>>>>                              sess, m, params);
>>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>>   +void *
>>>>>>> +rte_security_get_pkt_metadata(struct rte_security_ctx *instance,
>>>>>>> +                  struct rte_mbuf *pkt)
>>>>>> Can we rename pkt with m. Just to make it consistent with the set 
>>>>>> API.
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +    void *md = NULL;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*instance->ops->get_pkt_metadata, NULL);
>>>>>>> +    if (instance->ops->get_pkt_metadata(instance->device, pkt, 
>>>>>>> &md))
>>>>>>> +        return NULL;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +    return md;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pkt metadata should be set by user i.e. the application, and the 
>>>>>> driver need not be aware of the format and the values of the 
>>>>>> metadata.
>>>>>> So setting the metadata in the driver and getting it back from 
>>>>>> the driver does not look a good idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it possible, that the application define the metadata on its 
>>>>>> own and set it in the library itself without the call to the 
>>>>>> driver ops.
> My first patch was along those lines. Can you take a look at that and 
> give your comments?
>
> If we add this metadata in rte_security_session, we can achieve the 
> above behavior without driver maintaining the metadata. But from the 
> packet, application will have to first get the security session. And 
> then application can get the metadata by calling "get metadata" with 
> rte_security_session as the argument. So we will need a "get_session" 
> API(which reaches the driver) and then do "get_app_metadata".
>>>>> I'm not sure I understand here; even in our case (ixgbe) the 
>>>>> driver sets the metadata and it is aware of the format - that is 
>>>>> the whole idea. This is why we added the set_metadata API, to 
>>>>> allow the driver to inject extra information into the mbuf, 
>>>>> information that is driver specific and derived from the security 
>>>>> session, so it makes sense to also have a symmetric get_metadata.
>>>>> Private data is the one that follows those rules, i.e. application 
>>>>> specific and driver transparent.
>>>>
>>>> As per my understanding of the user metadata, it should be in 
>>>> control of the application, and the application shall know the 
>>>> format of that. Setting in driver will disallow this.
>>>> Please let me know if my understanding is incorrect.
> Your understanding is correct. That' the requirement.
>>>>
>>>> If at all, some information is needed to be set on the basis of 
>>>> driver, then application can get that information from the driver 
>>>> and then set it in the packet metadata in its own way/format.
>>>
>>> The rte_security_set_pkt_metadata() doc defines the metadata as 
>>> "device-specific defined metadata" and also takes a device specific 
>>> params pointer, so the symmetric function is to be expected to work 
>>> in the same way, i.e. return device specific metadata associated 
>>> with the security session and instance and mbuf. How is this 
>>> metadata stored is not specified in the security API, so the PMD 
>>> implementation have the flexibility.
> The requirement in this case isn't exactly parallel to 
> "set_pkt_metadata". May be we can drop making it symmetric?
>>>
>>
>> Yes it was defined that way and I did not noticed this one at the 
>> time of it's implementation.
>> Here, my point is that the application may be using mbuf udata for 
>> it's own functionality, it should not be modified in the driver.
>>
>> However, if we need to do this, then we may need to clarify in the 
>> documentation that for security, udata shall be set with the 
>> rte_security_set_pkt_metadata() and not otherwise.
>>
>> -Akhil
>

  reply	other threads:[~2017-11-29  5:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-11-20 10:31 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] add inline protocol support Anoob Joseph
2017-11-20 10:31 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] lib/security: add support for saving app cookie Anoob Joseph
2017-11-20 12:12   ` Radu Nicolau
2017-11-20 15:32     ` Anoob
2017-11-20 17:49       ` Radu Nicolau
2017-11-20 19:09         ` Anoob Joseph
2017-11-21 10:15           ` Radu Nicolau
2017-11-20 10:31 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add support for inline protocol Anoob Joseph
2017-11-22  6:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/2] add inline protocol support Anoob Joseph
2017-11-22  6:55   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] lib/security: add support for get metadata Anoob Joseph
2017-11-22 11:29     ` Radu Nicolau
2017-11-22 11:52       ` Anoob
2017-11-22 12:12         ` Radu Nicolau
2017-11-22 13:27     ` Neil Horman
2017-11-22 14:13       ` Anoob
2017-11-27 13:55         ` Neil Horman
2017-11-22  6:55   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add support for inline protocol Anoob Joseph
2017-11-22 12:21   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/2] add inline protocol support Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-11-22 12:55     ` Anoob
2017-11-22 13:05       ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-11-22 13:38         ` Anoob
2017-11-22 13:53           ` Anoob
2017-11-22 15:13         ` Anoob
2017-11-22 15:25           ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-11-23 11:19   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 " Anoob Joseph
2017-11-23 11:19     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] lib/security: add support for get metadata Anoob Joseph
2017-11-24  8:50       ` Akhil Goyal
2017-11-24  9:39         ` Radu Nicolau
2017-11-24 10:55           ` Akhil Goyal
2017-11-24 11:17             ` Radu Nicolau
2017-11-24 11:34               ` Akhil Goyal
2017-11-24 11:59                 ` Radu Nicolau
2017-11-24 12:03                   ` Akhil Goyal
2017-12-06  7:30                     ` Anoob
2017-12-06  9:43                       ` Radu Nicolau
2017-12-11  7:21                         ` Anoob
2017-12-12  8:55                           ` Akhil Goyal
2017-12-12 13:50                             ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-13 14:38                               ` Akhil Goyal
2017-11-24 12:22                 ` Anoob
2017-11-29  5:43                   ` Anoob [this message]
2017-12-04  9:28                   ` Akhil Goyal
2017-12-04 10:16                     ` Anoob
2017-11-23 11:19     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add support for inline protocol Anoob Joseph
2017-12-11 11:02       ` Radu Nicolau
2017-12-15  8:30     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/2] add inline protocol support Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15  8:30       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/2] lib/security: add support for get userdata Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15  8:30       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add support for inline protocol Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15  8:43       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/2] add inline protocol support Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15  8:43         ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/2] lib/security: add support for get userdata Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15 10:01           ` Akhil Goyal
2017-12-15 10:53             ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15 10:58               ` Akhil Goyal
2017-12-15  8:43         ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add support for inline protocol Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15  9:39           ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-15 11:03             ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15 13:35               ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-15 10:04           ` Akhil Goyal
2017-12-15 11:16             ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-18  7:15         ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/2] add inline protocol support Anoob Joseph
2017-12-18  7:15           ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/2] lib/security: add support for get userdata Anoob Joseph
2017-12-18  7:34             ` Akhil Goyal
2017-12-18  7:15           ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add support for inline protocol Anoob Joseph
2018-01-08 16:10             ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2018-01-09  9:12             ` Akhil Goyal
2018-01-16 11:00             ` Nicolau, Radu
2018-01-09 16:05           ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/2] add inline protocol support 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=849074b1-b46a-08fe-c1ad-86f4e603900b@caviumnetworks.com \
    --to=anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=akhil.goyal@nxp.com \
    --cc=declan.doherty@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=narayanaprasad.athreya@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=radu.nicolau@intel.com \
    --cc=sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.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).