From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: "Nithin Dabilpuram" <ndabilpuram@marvell.com>,
"Thomas Monjalon" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"Akhil Goyal" <gakhil@marvell.com>,
jerinj@marvell.com, dev@dpdk.org,
"Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
techboard@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] security: introduce out of place support for inline ingress
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 14:03:40 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALBAE1Mqyef-f-SLZ_L9hJAkdKxrpopfZMDGE+gA4vhBwvR2XQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230411110553.25f7c038@hermes.local>
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:36 PM Stephen Hemminger
<stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 15:34:07 +0530
> Nithin Dabilpuram <ndabilpuram@marvell.com> wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/lib/security/rte_security.h b/lib/security/rte_security.h
> > index 4bacf9fcd9..866cd4e8ee 100644
> > --- a/lib/security/rte_security.h
> > +++ b/lib/security/rte_security.h
> > @@ -275,6 +275,17 @@ struct rte_security_ipsec_sa_options {
> > */
> > uint32_t ip_reassembly_en : 1;
> >
> > + /** Enable out of place processing on inline inbound packets.
> > + *
> > + * * 1: Enable driver to perform Out-of-place(OOP) processing for this inline
> > + * inbound SA if supported by driver. PMD need to register mbuf
> > + * dynamic field using rte_security_oop_dynfield_register()
> > + * and security session creation would fail if dynfield is not
> > + * registered successfully.
> > + * * 0: Disable OOP processing for this session (default).
> > + */
> > + uint32_t ingress_oop : 1;
> > +
> > /** Reserved bit fields for future extension
> > *
> > * User should ensure reserved_opts is cleared as it may change in
> > @@ -282,7 +293,7 @@ struct rte_security_ipsec_sa_options {
> > *
> > * Note: Reduce number of bits in reserved_opts for every new option.
> > */
> > - uint32_t reserved_opts : 17;
> > + uint32_t reserved_opts : 16;
> > };
>
> NAK
> Let me repeat the reserved bit rant. YAGNI
>
> Reserved space is not usable without ABI breakage unless the existing
> code enforces that reserved space has to be zero.
>
> Just saying "User should ensure reserved_opts is cleared" is not enough.
Yes. I think, we need to enforce to have _init functions for the
structures which is using reserved filed.
On the same note on YAGNI, I am wondering why NOT introduce
RTE_NEXT_ABI marco kind of scheme to compile out ABI breaking changes.
By keeping RTE_NEXT_ABI disable by default, enable explicitly if user
wants it to avoid waiting for one year any ABI breaking changes.
There are a lot of "fixed appliance" customers (not OS distribution
driven customer) they are willing to recompile DPDK for new feature.
What we are loosing with this scheme?
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-18 8:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-09 8:56 [RFC 1/2] " Nithin Dabilpuram
2023-03-09 8:56 ` [RFC 2/2] test/security: add unittest for inline ingress oop Nithin Dabilpuram
2023-04-11 10:04 ` [PATCH 1/3] security: introduce out of place support for inline ingress Nithin Dabilpuram
2023-04-11 10:04 ` [PATCH 2/3] net/cnxk: support inline ingress out of place session Nithin Dabilpuram
2023-04-11 10:04 ` [PATCH 3/3] test/security: add unittest for inline ingress oop Nithin Dabilpuram
2023-04-11 18:05 ` [PATCH 1/3] security: introduce out of place support for inline ingress Stephen Hemminger
2023-04-18 8:33 ` Jerin Jacob [this message]
2023-04-24 22:41 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-05-19 8:07 ` Jerin Jacob
2023-05-30 9:23 ` Jerin Jacob
2023-05-30 13:51 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-05-31 9:26 ` Morten Brørup
2023-07-01 7:15 ` [PATCH] doc: announce addition of new security IPsec SA option Nithin Dabilpuram
2023-07-03 14:35 ` Akhil Goyal
2023-07-04 5:15 ` [PATCH v2] " Nithin Dabilpuram
2023-07-05 14:07 ` Jerin Jacob
2023-07-11 8:55 ` [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2023-07-06 23:05 ` [PATCH] " Ji, Kai
2023-08-11 8:54 ` [PATCH 1/3] security: introduce out of place support for inline ingress Nithin Dabilpuram
2023-08-11 8:54 ` [PATCH 2/3] net/cnxk: support inline ingress out of place session Nithin Dabilpuram
2023-08-11 8:54 ` [PATCH 3/3] test/security: add unittest for inline ingress oop Nithin Dabilpuram
2023-09-19 19:55 ` [PATCH 1/3] security: introduce out of place support for inline ingress Akhil Goyal
2023-09-21 2:15 ` [PATCH v2 " Nithin Dabilpuram
2023-09-21 2:15 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] net/cnxk: support inline ingress out of place session Nithin Dabilpuram
2023-09-21 2:15 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] test/security: add unittest for inline ingress oop Nithin Dabilpuram
2023-09-21 10:44 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] security: introduce out of place support for inline ingress Akhil Goyal
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=CALBAE1Mqyef-f-SLZ_L9hJAkdKxrpopfZMDGE+gA4vhBwvR2XQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=gakhil@marvell.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=ndabilpuram@marvell.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=techboard@dpdk.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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).