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 11:41 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
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/22/2018 3:40 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >
> >> -----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
> 
> Agreed with your point. But in case of inline ipsec, user may not be initializing the crypto device either.
> 
> So the cryptodev_mask option would be redundant in that case and it may not give that parameter.

It is still not clear to me why you'd like to prohibit cryptodev_mask==0?
Would anything will be broken?
Konstantin


> 
> -Akhil
> 
> >> 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