From: Ramkumar Balu <rbalu@marvell.com>
To: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>,
Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>,
Declan Doherty <declan.doherty@intel.com>,
Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zhang@intel.com>,
Ankur Dwivedi <adwivedi@marvell.com>,
"Tejasree Kondoj" <ktejasree@marvell.com>
Cc: <stable@dpdk.org>, <dev@dpdk.org>, Ramkumar <rbalu@marvell.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/5] cryptodev: fix inconsistency in RSA op usage
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 09:51:54 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211129095159.16376-1-rbalu@marvell.com> (raw)
From: Ramkumar <rbalu@marvell.com>
The RSA verify operation is performed in two stages: 1. decrypt using
public key (output: plaintext message) 2. Compare resultant plaintext
message with the expected plaintext message to verify. (return
succ/fail in status field) Some applications need the decrypted
plaintext (stage 1 result) also to be retunred. For reference, OpenSSL
also provides similar API (RSA_public_decrypt).
lib cryptodev API failed to specify a field in 'struct
rte_crypto_rsa_op_param' to return the plaintext result after public
key decryption. It created inconsistency among crypto PMDs in returning
plaintext during RSA verify.
Inconsistency in RSA verify,
crypto/octeontx - uses 'sign' field to return plaintext
crypto/cnxk - uses 'sign' field to return plaintext
crypto/openssl - does not return plaintext
crypto/qat - uses 'cipher' field to return plaintext
test/cryptodev_asym - expects PMDs to use 'cipher' field
Thus, this patch series fixes all usages to only use 'cipher' field for
above described scenario. The 'sign' and 'message' fields are not
chosen as they are used for different purpose under same operation.
rte_crypto_rsa_op_param struct fields to use for
RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_OP_VERIFY:
1. input: rsa.sign - signature to be decrypted or verified
2. input: rsa.message - expected plaintext, used to compare
3. output: rsa.cipher - resultant plaintext from decryption
Ramkumar (5):
cryptodev: fix RSA op cipher field description
crypto/openssl: fix output of RSA verify op
crypto/octeontx: fix output field for RSA verify
crypto/octeontx2: fix output field for RSA verify
crypto/cnxk: fix output field for RSA verify
drivers/crypto/cnxk/cnxk_ae.h | 15 +++++++++------
drivers/crypto/octeontx/otx_cryptodev_ops.c | 10 ++++++----
drivers/crypto/octeontx2/otx2_cryptodev_ops.c | 16 +++++++++-------
drivers/crypto/openssl/rte_openssl_pmd.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto_asym.h | 7 ++++---
5 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
--
2.17.1
next reply other threads:[~2021-11-29 10:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-29 9:51 Ramkumar Balu [this message]
2021-11-29 9:51 ` [PATCH 1/5] cryptodev: fix RSA op cipher field description Ramkumar Balu
2021-11-29 9:51 ` [PATCH 2/5] crypto/openssl: fix output of RSA verify op Ramkumar Balu
2021-12-28 9:10 ` Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
2022-01-13 10:34 ` Ramkumar Balu
2021-11-29 9:51 ` [PATCH 3/5] crypto/octeontx: fix output field for RSA verify Ramkumar Balu
2021-11-29 9:51 ` [PATCH 4/5] crypto/octeontx2: " Ramkumar Balu
2021-11-29 9:51 ` [PATCH 5/5] crypto/cnxk: " Ramkumar Balu
2021-12-28 8:58 ` [PATCH 0/5] cryptodev: fix inconsistency in RSA op usage Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
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=20211129095159.16376-1-rbalu@marvell.com \
--to=rbalu@marvell.com \
--cc=adwivedi@marvell.com \
--cc=anoobj@marvell.com \
--cc=declan.doherty@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=gakhil@marvell.com \
--cc=ktejasree@marvell.com \
--cc=roy.fan.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
/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).