Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix portmask option parsing

["Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.goyal@nxp.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 11:01 AM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Nicolau, Radu <radu.nicolau@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix portmask option parsing
> 
> Hi Konstantin,
> 
> On 6/21/2018 8:32 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> 
> > Hi Akhil,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.goyal@nxp.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 2:49 PM
> >> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> >> Cc: Nicolau, Radu <radu.nicolau@intel.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix portmask option parsing
> >>
> >> Hi Konstantin,
> >>
> >> On 6/5/2018 7:46 PM, Konstantin Ananyev wrote:
> >>> parse_portmask() returns both portmask value and possible error code
> >>> as 32-bit integer. That causes some confusion for callers.
> >>> Split error code and portmask value into two distinct variables.
> >>> Also allows to run the app with unprotected_port_mask == 0.
> >> This would also allow cryptodev_mask == 0 to work well which should not be the case.
> >>
> >>> Fixes: d299106e8e31 ("examples/ipsec-secgw: add IPsec sample application")
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>    examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c | 29 +++++++++++++++--------------
> >>>    1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c
> >>> index fafb41161..5d7071657 100644
> >>> --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c
> >>> +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c
> >>> @@ -972,20 +972,19 @@ print_usage(const char *prgname)
> >>>    }
> >>>
> >>>    static int32_t
> >>> -parse_portmask(const char *portmask)
> >>> +parse_portmask(const char *portmask, uint32_t *pmv)
> >>>    {
> >>> -	char *end = NULL;
> >>> +	char *end;
> >>>    	unsigned long pm;
> >>>
> >>>    	/* parse hexadecimal string */
> >>> +	errno = 0;
> >>>    	pm = strtoul(portmask, &end, 16);
> >>> -	if ((portmask[0] == '\0') || (end == NULL) || (*end != '\0'))
> >>> +	if (errno != 0 || *end != '\0' || pm > UINT32_MAX)
> >>>    		return -1;
> >>>
> >>> -	if ((pm == 0) && errno)
> >>> -		return -1;
> >>> -
> >>> -	return pm;
> >>> +	*pmv = pm;
> >>> +	return 0;
> >>>    }
> >>>
> >>>    static int32_t
> >>> @@ -1063,6 +1062,7 @@ parse_args(int32_t argc, char **argv)
> >>>    	int32_t opt, ret;
> >>>    	char **argvopt;
> >>>    	int32_t option_index;
> >>> +	uint32_t v;
> >>>    	char *prgname = argv[0];
> >>>    	int32_t f_present = 0;
> >>>
> >>> @@ -1073,8 +1073,8 @@ parse_args(int32_t argc, char **argv)
> >>>
> >>>    		switch (opt) {
> >>>    		case 'p':
> >>> -			enabled_port_mask = parse_portmask(optarg);
> >>> -			if (enabled_port_mask == 0) {
> >>> +			ret = parse_portmask(optarg, &enabled_port_mask);
> >>> +			if (ret < 0 || enabled_port_mask == 0) {
> >>>    				printf("invalid portmask\n");
> >>>    				print_usage(prgname);
> >>>    				return -1;
> >>> @@ -1085,8 +1085,8 @@ parse_args(int32_t argc, char **argv)
> >>>    			promiscuous_on = 1;
> >>>    			break;
> >>>    		case 'u':
> >>> -			unprotected_port_mask = parse_portmask(optarg);
> >>> -			if (unprotected_port_mask == 0) {
> >>> +			ret = parse_portmask(optarg, &unprotected_port_mask);
> >>> +			if (ret < 0) {
> >>>    				printf("invalid unprotected portmask\n");
> >>>    				print_usage(prgname);
> >>>    				return -1;
> >>> @@ -1147,15 +1147,16 @@ parse_args(int32_t argc, char **argv)
> >>>    					single_sa_idx);
> >>>    			break;
> >>>    		case CMD_LINE_OPT_CRYPTODEV_MASK_NUM:
> >>> -			ret = parse_portmask(optarg);
> >>> +			ret = parse_portmask(optarg, &v);
> >> I think there is no need for v, enabled_cryptodev_mask can be used instead.
> > Right now - it can't as enabled_cryptodevmask is uint64_t.
> > To do what you suggesting we have either downgrade enabled_cryptodevmask 32-bits,
> > or upgrade enabled_port_mask to 64-bit and change parse_portmask() to accept 64-bit parameter.
> 
> I am ok with any of the case.
> 
> >
> >>>    			if (ret == -1) {
> >> enabled_cryptodev_mask should not be 0 and should be checked here.
> > Could you explain a bit more why enabled_cryptodevmask==0 is not allowed?
> 
> By default, the value of enabled_cryptodevmask is UINT64_MAX, which means all crypto
> devices are enabled, and if it is marked as 0, then all get disabled which is not
> correct as we need atleast 1 crypto device in ipsec application.

Might be user would like to run app with inline ipsec only,
or have app to work in bypass mode only (no encrypt/decrypt) at all.
Why that should be considered as a problem? 
Konstantin

> So if the user doesn't
> want to give the cryptodev_mask then he may skip that parameter, but if it is giving,
> then it cannot be 0.
> 
> >
> > Konstantin
> >
> >
> -Akhil