[dpdk-dev] [EXT] [dpdk-dev v1] test/cryptodev: fix incomplete data length

[Ji, Kai]

Hi Anoob, 

Please see my commit inline below. 

Thanks Kai 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anoob Joseph <anoobj at marvell.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 4:32 AM
> To: Anoob Joseph <anoobj at marvell.com>; Ji, Kai <kai.ji at intel.com>;
> dev at dpdk.org; Akhil Goyal <gakhil at marvell.com>
> Cc: De Lara Guarch, Pablo <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>;
> adamx.dybkowski at intel.com; Zhang, Roy Fan <roy.fan.zhang at intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] [dpdk-dev v1] test/cryptodev: fix incomplete
> data length
> 
> Hi Kai,
> 
> Also, couple of nits. Please check inline.
> 
> Thanks,
> Anoob
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev <dev-bounces at dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Anoob Joseph
> > Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 9:36 AM
> > To: Kai Ji <kai.ji at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org; Akhil Goyal
> > <gakhil at marvell.com>
> > Cc: pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com; adamx.dybkowski at intel.com;
> > roy.fan.zhang at intel.com
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] [dpdk-dev v1] test/cryptodev: fix
> > incomplete data length
> >
> > Hi Kai,
> >
> > Patch looks good. Wondering if we need same fix in functions such as "
> > test_zuc_auth_cipher()".
> >
> > We were also hitting this issue when we enabled few additional
> > features in Marvell PMDs. Upon investigation, we realized that this
> > issue would come up for certain packet size combinations if the padded
> > lengths are not same. We observed the issue only with
> > test_mixed_auth_cipher(), which is getting addressed with this patch.
> > Just wondering if you have checked whether other places also would need
> a fix.
> >

[Kai] Yes, this fix should apply to test_zuc_auth_cipher().  However,  I don't see any zuc test failed from my side as there  is no zuc test vector to cover the OOP partial digest case. I think I will add this fix into the zuc test anyway.   

> > Thanks,
> > Anoob
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: dev <dev-bounces at dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Kai Ji
> > > Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 9:12 PM
> > > To: dev at dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Kai Ji <kai.ji at intel.com>; pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com;
> > > adamx.dybkowski at intel.com
> > > Subject: [EXT] [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-dev v1] test/cryptodev: fix
> > > incomplete data length
> > >
> > > External Email
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > -- This patch fixes incorrect data lengths computation in cryptodev
> > > unit test.
> > > Previously some data lengths were incorrectly set, which was
> > > insensitive for crypto op unit tets but is critical for raw data
> > > path API unit tests. The patch addressed the issue by setting the
> > > correct data
> > lengths for some tests.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 681f540da52b ("cryptodev: do not use AAD in wireless
> > > algorithms")
> > > Cc: pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com
> > >
> > > Fixes: e847fc512817 ("test/crypto: add encrypted digest case for
> > > AES-CTR-
> > > CMAC")
> > > Cc: adamx.dybkowski at intel.com
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Kai Ji <kai.ji at intel.com>
> > > ---
<snip>
> > > @@ -7335,6 +7335,7 @@ test_mixed_auth_cipher(const struct
> > > mixed_cipher_auth_test_data *tdata,
> > >  	unsigned int plaintext_len;
> > >  	unsigned int ciphertext_pad_len;
> > >  	unsigned int ciphertext_len;
> > > +	unsigned int data_len;
> > >
> > >  	struct rte_cryptodev_info dev_info;
> > >  	struct rte_crypto_op *op;
> > > @@ -7395,21 +7396,22 @@ test_mixed_auth_cipher(const struct
> > > mixed_cipher_auth_test_data *tdata,
> > >  	plaintext_len = ceil_byte_length(tdata->plaintext.len_bits);
> > >  	ciphertext_pad_len = RTE_ALIGN_CEIL(ciphertext_len, 16);
> > >  	plaintext_pad_len = RTE_ALIGN_CEIL(plaintext_len, 16);
> > > +	data_len = RTE_MAX(ciphertext_pad_len, plaintext_pad_len);
> 
> [Anoob] Isn't ciphertext_pad_len guaranteed to be the larger one of the two?
> Do we need another variable and the RTE_MAX?

[Kai] the ciphertext_pad_len should be always bigger than plaintext_pad_len,  code changed in v2. 

> 
> > >
> > >  	if (verify) {
> > >  		ciphertext = (uint8_t *)rte_pktmbuf_append(ut_params-
> > > >ibuf,
> > > -				ciphertext_pad_len);
> > > +				data_len);
> > >  		memcpy(ciphertext, tdata->ciphertext.data, ciphertext_len);
> > >  		if (op_mode == OUT_OF_PLACE)
> > > -			rte_pktmbuf_append(ut_params->obuf,
> > > ciphertext_pad_len);
> > > +			rte_pktmbuf_append(ut_params->obuf, data_len);
> > >  		debug_hexdump(stdout, "ciphertext:", ciphertext,
> > >  				ciphertext_len);
> > >  	} else {
> > >  		plaintext = (uint8_t *)rte_pktmbuf_append(ut_params-
> > > >ibuf,
> > > -				plaintext_pad_len);
> > > +				data_len);
> > >  		memcpy(plaintext, tdata->plaintext.data, plaintext_len);
> > >  		if (op_mode == OUT_OF_PLACE)
> > > -			rte_pktmbuf_append(ut_params->obuf,
> > > plaintext_pad_len);
> > > +			rte_pktmbuf_append(ut_params->obuf, data_len);
> 
> [Anoob] Now that more things are common across the branches, can we
> move out some bits outside the if condition? Like, the above line is definitely
> same and be kept outside condition. The append call prior to this can also be
> kept common if we can rename the local variable.

[Kai] code changed in v2 

> 
> > >  		debug_hexdump(stdout, "plaintext:", plaintext,
> > plaintext_len);
> > >  	}
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.17.1