Hi Akhil,
No changes in sequence of API's by adding 'uint8_t impl_opaque' to 'struct
rte_crypto_op'.
It's required in case application/event dispatcher passes some implementation
specific value in rte_event::impl_opaque, to restore the value
back on to rte_event::impl_opaque after enqueue to and dequeue from cryptodev.
Here is the pseudocode for one of the use case
Application/event dispatcher passes implementation specific value in
rte_event::impl_opaque.
struct rte_event ev;
rte_event_dequeue_burst(..., &ev, ...)
struct rte_crypto_op *crypto_op = ev.event_ptr; // ev.impl_opaque some
implementation specific value
rte_cryptodev_enqueue_burst(..., crypto_op, ...) ; // ev.impl_opaque is not
passed to crypto_op
With rte_crypto_op::impl_opaque field which is unchanged in library/driver
crypto_op->impl_opaque = ev.impl_opaque;
rte_cryptodev_enqueue_burst(..., crypto_op, ...) ;
...
rte_crypto_dequeue_burst(..., crypto_op, ...)
ev.event_ptr = crypto_op;
...
rte_event_enqueue_burst(..., &ev, ...); // ev::impl_opaque value is lost
with rte_crypto_op::impl_opaque field
ev.event_ptr = crypto_op;
ev.impl_opaque = crypto_op->impl_opaque; // implementation specific value in
rte_event::impl_opaque restored back
rte_event_enqueue_burst(..., &ev, ...);
Thanks,
Ganapati
From: Akhil Goyal <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 10:18 PM
To: Kundapura, Ganapati <[email protected]>; dpdk-dev
<[email protected]>; [email protected]; Ji, Kai <[email protected]>; Power,
Ciara <[email protected]>; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
<[email protected]>; Gujjar, Abhinandan S
<[email protected]>; Jayatheerthan, Jay
<[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: RFC: Using and renaming 8-bit reserved field of rte_crypto_op for
implementation specific
Hi Ganapati,
Can you please explain the flow with a sequence of APIs to be used.
Regards,
Akhil
From: Kundapura, Ganapati
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 12:44 PM
To: dpdk-dev <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Akhil Goyal
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Ji, Kai
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Power, Ciara
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Gujjar,
Abhinandan S <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
Jayatheerthan, Jay
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Jerin Jacob
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RFC: Using and renaming 8-bit reserved field of
rte_crypto_op for implementation specific
Prioritize security for external emails: Confirm sender and content safety
before clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Hi dpdk-dev,
Can 'uint8_t reserved[1]' of 'struct rte_crypto_op' be renamed
to 'uint8_t impl_opaque' for implementation specific?
An implementation may use this field to hold implementation specific
value to share value between dequeue and enqueue operation and crypto
library/driver
can also use this field to share implementation specfic value to event crypto
adapter/application.
'struct rte_event' has 'uint8_t impl_opaque' member
struct rte_event {
...
uint8_t impl_opaque;
/**< Implementation specific opaque value.
* An implementation may use this field to hold
* implementation specific value to share between
* dequeue and enqueue operation.
* The application should not modify this field.
*/
...
};
Event crypto adapter, on dequeuing the event, enqueues rte_event::event_ptr
to cryptodev as rte_crypto_op and converts the dequeued crypto op to rte_event
without restoring the implementation specific opaque value.
By having the 'uint8_t impl_opaque' member in 'struct rte_crypto_op' as
diff --git a/lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto.h b/lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto.h
index dbc2700..af46ec9 100644
--- a/lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto.h
+++ b/lib/cryptodev/rte_crypto.h
@@ -146,10 +146,13 @@ struct rte_crypto_op {
/**< TLS record */
} param1;
/**< Additional per operation parameter 1. */
- uint8_t reserved[1];
- /**< Reserved bytes to fill 64 bits for
- * future additions
+ uint8_t impl_opaque;
+ /**< Implementation specific opaque value.
+ * An implementation may use this field to hold
+ * implementation specific value to share between
+ * dequeue and enqueue operation.
*/
+
which is untouched in library/driver and rte_event::impl_opaque field can be
restored
while enqueuing the event back to eventdev.
Also crypto library/driver can use rte_crypto_op::impl_opaque field to
share implementation specific opaque value to the event crypto
adapter/application.
I look forward to feedback on this proposal. Patch will be submitted
for review once the initial feedback is received.
Thank you,
Ganapati
