From: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>
To: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.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, 13 Dec 2017 20:08:02 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9a2b458d-aca9-1cee-b77a-0ad04f69f866@nxp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5f2245e3-72ea-e529-1620-a0d96fd0c675@caviumnetworks.com>
On 12/12/2017 7:20 PM, Anoob Joseph wrote:
> Hi Akhil, Radu
>
>
> On 12/12/2017 02:25 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
>> Hi Anoob,
>>
>> On 12/11/2017 12:51 PM, Anoob wrote:
>>> Hi Akhil,
>>>
>>> Can you confirm if you are fine with the approach explained inline.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Anoob
>>>
>>> On 12/06/2017 03:13 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/6/2017 7:30 AM, Anoob wrote:
>>>>> Hi Akhil, Radu,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please see inline.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Anoob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/24/2017 05:33 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/24/2017 5:29 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/24/2017 11:34 AM, 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.
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Is rte_security_get_pkt_metadata() expected to return a "device
>>>>> specific" pointer? If that's the case, we would need another call
>>>>> (something like, rte_security_get_userdata()) to get back the
>>>>> userdata, right? Or is it fine, if the application assumes it will
>>>>> get userdata (the one passed in conf while creating security
>>>>> session) with rte_security_get_pkt_metadata()?
>>>> Yes, this will be my assumption, a "device specific" pointer
>>>> (similar to the "void *params" parameter of the
>>>> rte_security_set_pkt_metadata function), which will contain an
>>>> arbitrary defined structure that will be decoded by calling a PMD
>>>> defined function.
>>>> But I think Akhil has a different view on this.
>> I am ok with the approach, if we are adding this as a limitation of
>> using udata in the documentation for inline cases.
>>
>> The ideal approach should be such that driver should not be knowing
>> the content of the udata. But, if we cannot do away with it, we can
>> mention it in the documentation.
> Will document the limitation of udata64's usage. Since we are
> documenting that udata64 will have some device defined metadata, do we
> need another API call for getting the "metadata"
> (rte_security_get_pkt_metadata). The driver can set this metadata in
> udata64 field, and in ingress, the userdata could be obtained with a
> single API call (rte_security_get_userdata(*instance, udata64)).
>
> The application will be aware that the udata64 in the mbuf will be the
> metadata from the receive side, and userdata can be retrieved only with
> that. If application need to use the udata64 field, it should save this
> rx metadata. Userdata can be obtained anytime by passing this metadata
> to the driver.
>
> To summarize,
> 1) udata64 of the ingress traffic will be device-specific metadata
> (documentation change)
> 2) Pass this field to rte_security_get_userdata() to get back the
> application registered pointer.
>
> Is this fine?
It looks ok as of now.
>
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> Indeed, we should update the doc stating that the set_metadata
>>>>>>> may change the mbuf userdata field so the application should use
>>>>>>> only private data if needed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed, but it is dependent on which driver/mode(inline or
>>>>>> lookaside), it will be used.
>>>>>> Lookaside may not need this API as of now. Other implementations
>>>>>> may also don't require. So this shall be documented that way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Akhil
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-13 14:38 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 [this message]
2017-11-24 12:22 ` Anoob
2017-11-29 5:43 ` Anoob
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=9a2b458d-aca9-1cee-b77a-0ad04f69f866@nxp.com \
--to=akhil.goyal@nxp.com \
--cc=anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.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).