RE: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test-crypto-perf: add throughput OOP decryption

[Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 5:32 PM
> To: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@nvidia.com>; Anoob Joseph
> <anoobj@marvell.com>; ciara.power@intel.com
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test-crypto-perf: add throughput OOP decryption
> 
> > > Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH] app/test-crypto-perf: add throughput OOP
> > decryption
> > >
> > > > > > +	if (options->test == CPERF_TEST_TYPE_THROUGHPUT &&
> > > > > > +	    (options->aead_op == RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_OP_DECRYPT ||
> > > > > > +	     options->cipher_op == RTE_CRYPTO_CIPHER_OP_DECRYPT)
> > &&
> > > > > > +			!options->out_of_place) {
> > > > > > +		RTE_LOG(ERR, USER1, "Only out-of-place is allowed in
> > > > > > throughput decryption.\n");
> > > > > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > +	}
> > > > >
> > > > > This check is blocking cipher_only decryption which should pass
> > > > > irrespective of inplace/oop and Data correct/incorrect.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, in that case I will remove "options->cipher_op ==
> > > > RTE_CRYPTO_CIPHER_OP_DECRYPT" and only kept " options->aead_op ==
> > > > RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_OP_DECRYPT ", what do you think?
> > >
> > > I would suggest to check for "auth_op == RTE_CRYPTO_AUTH_OP_VERIFY"
> > > Instead of cipher_op.
> >
> > I'm not sure. Since in AEAD OP, auth_op will always be
> > RTE_CRYPTO_AUTH_OP_VERIFY, in that case even in place encrypt will be
> > rejected.
> > If the combination here is too complicated, what about just remove
> > that limits and let user to decide? If the input is not correct, PMD will reject it as
> well.
> 
> The problematic cases are where auth data (ICV) is not correct.
> i.e. AEAD, AUTH_ONLY and CIPHER_AUTH.
> 
> Hence following check should be ok.
> if (options->test == CPERF_TEST_TYPE_THROUGHPUT &&
> 	(options->aead_op == RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_OP_DECRYPT ||
> 	options->auth_op == RTE_CRYPTO_AUTH_OP_VERIFY) &&
> 	!options->out_of_place) {

OK, that make sense. Will update, thanks.

> 
> Yes PMD will report error if the input data is not correct, but we cannot just fail in
> that case just because the app is intentionally not filling the data.
> It should report unsupported case.
> >
> > >
> > > Ciara, What do you suggest? You were also seeing some issues in this patch.