From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F9041E34; Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:55:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Apr 2017 07:55:45 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.37,388,1488873600"; d="scan'208";a="1141375415" Received: from dwdohert-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [163.33.228.249]) ([163.33.228.249]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Apr 2017 07:55:44 -0700 To: "Trahe, Fiona" , "dev@dpdk.org" References: <1493139391-9356-1-git-send-email-fiona.trahe@intel.com> <2761b670-22c5-0eda-fe08-7869ba5973d2@intel.com> <348A99DA5F5B7549AA880327E580B435891ECAE9@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> Cc: "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" , "stable@dpdk.org" From: Declan Doherty Message-ID: <055fc31d-0e29-6693-7b14-f57a4e419f6f@intel.com> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:55:43 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <348A99DA5F5B7549AA880327E580B435891ECAE9@IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] lib/cryptodev: fix API digest length comments X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:55:46 -0000 On 28/04/2017 2:38 PM, Trahe, Fiona wrote: > Hi Declan, > >> -----Original Message----- ... >> I don't think this comment change is valid, we already validate many of >> the parameters which are passed into session creation, such as key >> lengths etc, if we are not validating digest length now I think we >> should be, maybe this is a gap in our unit tests. >> > Neither the API nor any of the PMDs validate the digest_length at present. > I agree, they probably should, but it's a bit late to add this in 17.05, > as it would be quite a bit of code churn, each PMD would have to check > against the range in their Capabilities structure. > So the next best thing for this release in my opinion is to remove the comment as > it is misleading and out of sync with the implementation. > In the next release we should remove the comments saying it's the callers > responsibility from both digest_length and auth key length and add > the param checks to each PMD. Oh, I guess it's better to make the comment reflect the current implementation and then fix in next release. > .... >