From: Anoob <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com>
To: Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com>,
Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.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: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:51:41 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b4519f2a-45bc-9c36-6f91-cb8a56cbe6cf@caviumnetworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40eaebc2-8472-f904-07f2-19325c12f3c8@intel.com>
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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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:[~2017-12-11 7:21 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 [this message]
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
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=b4519f2a-45bc-9c36-6f91-cb8a56cbe6cf@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).