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

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

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.

-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