Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/6] test/crypto: add unit testcase for asym crypto

["Verma, Shally" <Shally.Verma@cavium.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: De Lara Guarch, Pablo [mailto:pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com]
>Sent: 18 June 2018 14:09
>To: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; Verma, Shally <Shally.Verma@cavium.com>
>Cc: Trahe, Fiona <fiona.trahe@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Athreya, Narayana Prasad <NarayanaPrasad.Athreya@cavium.com>; Sahu,
>Sunila <Sunila.Sahu@cavium.com>; Gupta, Ashish <Ashish.Gupta@cavium.com>
>Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/6] test/crypto: add unit testcase for asym crypto
>
//snip

>> >>>>>>> +static int
>> >>>>>>> +test_rsa(struct rsa_test_data *t)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> ...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> +     rsa->n =
>> >>>>>>> +             BN_bin2bn(
>> >>>>>>> +                     (const unsigned char *)rsa_xform.rsa.n.data,
>> >>>>>>> +                     rsa_xform.rsa.n.length,
>> >>>>>>> +                     rsa->n);
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I am getting a compilation error:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> /test/test/test_cryptodev_asym.c:322:5: error:
>> >>>>>> dereferencing pointer to incomplete type 'RSA {aka struct rsa_st}'
>> >>>>>>  rsa->n =
>> >>>>>>     ^~
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> My OpenSSL version is 1.1.0h.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> [Shally] This library is tested with version 1.0.2m (mentioned
>> >>>>> above) and also one supported by openssl PMD . So, you need to take
>> similar version.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'd say we should support the latest stable version of OpenSSL.
>> >>>> Could you get the latest 1.1.0?
>> >>> [Shally] Openssl PMD uses 1.0.2h. If we move test to 1.1.0 then dpdk
>> >>> would need to be set to link to two different version of libcrypto whenever
>> openssl PMD is enabled which seems like a cumbersome process for users.
>> >>> So I recommend for now to stick to one version.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> OpenSSL PMD can get compiled/linked with any of the versions 1.0.2 or
>> >> 1.1. We cannot control the above applications which version it is using.
>> >> So we should not add limitation for openssl version. Please check
>> >> below snippet in the PMD if this is suitable in your case.
>> >>
>> >> +#if (OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L) static HMAC_CTX
>> >> +*HMAC_CTX_new(void) {
>> >> +       HMAC_CTX *ctx = OPENSSL_malloc(sizeof(*ctx));
>> >> +
>> >> +       if (ctx != NULL)
>> >> +               HMAC_CTX_init(ctx);
>> >> +       return ctx;
>> >> +}
>> >> +
>> >> +static void HMAC_CTX_free(HMAC_CTX *ctx) {
>> >> +       if (ctx != NULL) {
>> >> +               HMAC_CTX_cleanup(ctx);
>> >> +               OPENSSL_free(ctx);
>> >> +       }
>> >> +}
>> >> +#endif
>> >>
>> > [Shally] Are we just planning to make PMD/test compatible for all lib versions?
>> Won't it then be too many version compatibility checks in PMD/test and a
>> maintainability issue than having implementation mentioned to be compatible
>> with specific version?
>> >
>>
>> I think we should at least support the latest stable version. As per the openssl
>> website "The latest stable version is the 1.1.0 series. The
>> 1.0.2 series is our Long Term Support (LTS) release, supported until 31st
>> December 2019". I think Pablo also suggested to support openssl 1.1.
>
>I think we should keep supporting OpenSSL 1.1, even though our documentation
>says that we support up to 1.0.2 (which we should fix!).
>Knowing that Ubuntu and Fedora have 1.1 version in their latest versions,
>I think it is a good idea to keep supporting this,
>As many users will be using this version and we would be breaking their code if he change this.

[Shally] Will look into this .

>
>Thanks,
>Pablo
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Akhil
>> >>
>> >>> Thanks
>> >>> Shally
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>> Pablo
>> >