[dpdk-users] Issue with ipsec-secgw sample application on VM using Intel QAT device (pass-through mode)

[Chinmaya Dwibedy]

Hi Sergio,


As suggested by you, run ‘app/test' application and then run
'cryptodev_qat_autotest' . Found the same issue i.e., It halts in
rte_cryptodev_dequeue_burst () (while loop) in process_crypto_request ()
function (app/test/test_cryptodev.c).

Debugged the qat_crypto_pkt_rx_burst() (in drivers/crypto/qat/qat_crypto.c)
and found that , the value of resp_msg is 0x7F7F7F7F (i.e.,
ADF_RING_EMPTY_SIG) . Thus it is not getting crypto packet (i.e., rte_mbuf)
from the RX queue.  But I find that, in qat_crypto_pkt_tx_burst(),
the  qat_alg_write_mbuf_entry() is being called. The
qat_alg_write_mbuf_entry () prints qat_req  using rte_hexdump () and
returns zero.


One question, the base_addr + tail of tx_q (in qat_crypto_pkt_tx_burst())
should be same as base_addr + head (in qat_crypto_pkt_rx_burst()). Right ?
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.


Also can you please provide some pointers for further debugging? Would it
be configuration issue? Note that, I am using VF in VM.


Thank you once again for your prompt response and great support.


Regards,

Chinmaya

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <
sergio.gonzalez.monroy at intel.com> wrote:

> On 20/06/2016 10:08, Chinmaya Dwibedy wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Sergio,
>>
>>
>> Agreed.  We might not dequeue the same amount of crypto ops we just
>> previously enqueued, it's asynchronous. But in this case, I have sent just
>> one UDP packet. So there will be one crypto ops. Right?  Also I put a sleep
>> (50) after the rte_crypto_enqueue_burst() function in ipsec_processing()
>> (ipsec.c) , so as to allow more time  ( for QAT device) for processing.
>> Still getting the same result i.e., the rte_crypto_dequeue_burst ()
>> functionreturns zero.
>>
>>
>> In case of S/W crypto device (i.e., AESNI),   the VM gets inbound UDP
>> packets on Port 1/eth1, encapsulates (after consulting its SPD) in an IPsec
>> ESP packet and sends to its peer through Port 0/eth0 interface.
>>
>>
>> Yes, the security policy, security association and Routing
>> entries/configurations are exactly same. Please feel free to let me know if
>> you need additional information.
>>
>>
> Could you try to run 'app/test' application then run
> 'cryptodev_qat_autotest' ? That is a functional test for cryptodev QAT PMD.
>
> Sergio
>
>