Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] security: update session create API

[Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>]

Hi Lukasz,

> Hi Akhil,
> > -#define SECURITY_TEST_MEMPOOL_NAME "SecurityTestsMempoolName"
> > +#define SECURITY_TEST_MEMPOOL_NAME "SecurityTestMp"
> > +#define SECURITY_TEST_PRIV_MEMPOOL_NAME "SecurityTestPrivMp"
> >   #define SECURITY_TEST_MEMPOOL_SIZE 15
> >   #define SECURITY_TEST_SESSION_OBJECT_SIZE sizeof(struct
> rte_security_session)
> >
> > @@ -545,6 +548,22 @@ testsuite_setup(void)
> >   			SOCKET_ID_ANY, 0);
> >   	TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(ts_params->session_mpool,
> >   			"Cannot create mempool %s\n",
> rte_strerror(rte_errno));
> > +
> > +	ts_params->session_priv_mpool = rte_mempool_create(
> > +			SECURITY_TEST_PRIV_MEMPOOL_NAME,
> > +			SECURITY_TEST_MEMPOOL_SIZE,
> > +			rte_security_session_get_size(&unittest_params.ctx),
> Call to rte_security_session_get_size() will cause a mockup function
> mock_session_get_size() to be called, which will return 0.
> Why do you call this function instead of defining some value for private
> mempool element size?

Fixed in v3

> > +			0, 0, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL,
> > +			SOCKET_ID_ANY, 0);
> > +	if (ts_params->session_priv_mpool == NULL) {
> > +		printf("TestCase %s() line %d failed (null): "
> > +				"Cannot create priv mempool %s\n",
> > +				__func__, __LINE__, rte_strerror(rte_errno));
> Instead of printf() use RTE_LOG(ERR, EAL,...). All other messages are
> printed this way. It allows control of error messages if required.

Fixed in v3, should be USER1 instead of EAL though.

> > +		rte_mempool_free(ts_params->session_mpool);
> > +		ts_params->session_mpool = NULL;
> > +		return TEST_FAILED;
> > +	}
> > +
> >   	return TEST_SUCCESS;
> >   }
> >
> > @@ -559,6 +578,10 @@ testsuite_teardown(void)
> >   		rte_mempool_free(ts_params->session_mpool);
> >   		ts_params->session_mpool = NULL;
> >   	}
> > +	if (ts_params->session_priv_mpool) {
> > +		rte_mempool_free(ts_params->session_priv_mpool);
> > +		ts_params->session_priv_mpool = NULL;
> > +	}
> >   }
> >
> >   /**
> > @@ -659,7 +682,8 @@ ut_setup_with_session(void)
> >   	mock_session_create_exp.ret = 0;
> >
> >   	sess = rte_security_session_create(&ut_params->ctx, &ut_params-
> >conf,
> > -			ts_params->session_mpool);
> > +			ts_params->session_mpool,
> > +			ts_params->session_priv_mpool);
> >
> 	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_FUNCTION_CALL_NOT_NULL(rte_security_sessio
> n_create,
> >   			sess);
> >   	TEST_ASSERT_EQUAL(sess, mock_session_create_exp.sess,
> > @@ -701,7 +725,8 @@ test_session_create_inv_context(void)
> >   	struct rte_security_session *sess;
> >
> >   	sess = rte_security_session_create(NULL, &ut_params->conf,
> > -			ts_params->session_mpool);
> > +			ts_params->session_mpool,
> > +			ts_params->session_priv_mpool);
> >
> 	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_FUNCTION_CALL_RET(rte_security_session_creat
> e,
> >   			sess, NULL, "%p");
> >   	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_CALLS(mock_session_create_exp, 0);
> > @@ -725,7 +750,8 @@ test_session_create_inv_context_ops(void)
> >   	ut_params->ctx.ops = NULL;
> >
> >   	sess = rte_security_session_create(&ut_params->ctx, &ut_params-
> >conf,
> > -			ts_params->session_mpool);
> > +			ts_params->session_mpool,
> > +			ts_params->session_priv_mpool);
> >
> 	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_FUNCTION_CALL_RET(rte_security_session_creat
> e,
> >   			sess, NULL, "%p");
> >   	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_CALLS(mock_session_create_exp, 0);
> > @@ -749,7 +775,8 @@ test_session_create_inv_context_ops_fun(void)
> >   	ut_params->ctx.ops = &empty_ops;
> >
> >   	sess = rte_security_session_create(&ut_params->ctx, &ut_params-
> >conf,
> > -			ts_params->session_mpool);
> > +			ts_params->session_mpool,
> > +			ts_params->session_priv_mpool);
> >
> 	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_FUNCTION_CALL_RET(rte_security_session_creat
> e,
> >   			sess, NULL, "%p");
> >   	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_CALLS(mock_session_create_exp, 0);
> > @@ -770,7 +797,8 @@ test_session_create_inv_configuration(void)
> >   	struct rte_security_session *sess;
> >
> >   	sess = rte_security_session_create(&ut_params->ctx, NULL,
> > -			ts_params->session_mpool);
> > +			ts_params->session_mpool,
> > +			ts_params->session_priv_mpool);
> >
> 	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_FUNCTION_CALL_RET(rte_security_session_creat
> e,
> >   			sess, NULL, "%p");
> >   	TEST_ASSERT_MOCK_CALLS(mock_session_create_exp, 0);
> > @@ -781,7 +809,7 @@ test_session_create_inv_configuration(void)
> >   }
> >
> >   /**
> > - * Test execution of rte_security_session_create with NULL mp parameter
> > + * Test execution of rte_security_session_create with NULL mempools
> >    */
> >   static int
> >   test_session_create_inv_mempool(void)
> > @@ -790,7 +818,7 @@ test_session_create_inv_mempool(void)
> >   	struct rte_security_session *sess;
> >
> >   	sess = rte_security_session_create(&ut_params->ctx, &ut_params-
> >conf,
> > -			NULL);
> > +			NULL, NULL);
> It would be best to add a new testcase for verification of passing NULL
> private mempool.
> If you pass NULL as the primary mempool as in this testcase, the
> verification of priv mempool (rte_securitry.c:37) won't ever happen
> because rte_security_session_create() will return in line 36.

Added a new test. However that was really unnecessary and was an overkill
To add a new case for so many negative cases.

Please have a look at v3 and ack it if no further comments.

Regards,
Akhil