[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: allow multiple security sessions to use one rte flow

[Medvedkin, Vladimir]

Hi Anoob,

On 11/12/2019 17:33, Anoob Joseph wrote:
> Hi Konstantin,
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Thanks,
> Anoob
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev <dev-bounces at dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Ananyev, Konstantin
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 4:36 PM
>> To: Anoob Joseph <anoobj at marvell.com>; Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal at nxp.com>;
>> Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil at 6wind.com>; Doherty, Declan
>> <declan.doherty at intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; Jerin Jacob
>> Kollanukkaran <jerinj at marvell.com>; Thomas Monjalon
>> <thomas at monjalon.net>
>> Cc: Ankur Dwivedi <adwivedi at marvell.com>; Hemant Agrawal
>> <hemant.agrawal at nxp.com>; Matan Azrad <matan at mellanox.com>; Nicolau,
>> Radu <radu.nicolau at intel.com>; Shahaf Shuler <shahafs at mellanox.com>;
>> Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya <pathreya at marvell.com>; dev at dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: allow multiple security sessions to use
>> one rte flow
>>
>>
>>>>> The rte_security API which enables inline protocol/crypto feature
>>>>> mandates that for every security session an rte_flow is created.
>>>>> This would internally translate to a rule in the hardware which
>>>>> would do packet classification.
>>>>>
>>>>> In rte_securty, one SA would be one security session. And if an
>>>>> rte_flow need to be created for every session, the number of SAs
>>>>> supported by an inline implementation would be limited by the
>>>>> number of rte_flows the PMD would be able to support.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the fields SPI & IP addresses are allowed to be a range, then
>>>>> this limitation can be overcome. Multiple flows will be able to
>>>>> use one rule for SECURITY processing. In this case, the security
>>>>> session provided as conf would be NULL.
>>>> Wonder what will be the usage model for it?
>>>> AFAIK,  RFC 4301 clearly states that either SPI value alone or in
>>>> conjunction with dst (and src) IP should clearly identify SA for inbound SAD
>> lookup.
>>>> Am I missing something obvious here?
>>> [Anoob] Existing SECURITY action type requires application to create
>>> an 'rte_flow' per SA, which is not really required if h/w can use SPI to uniquely
>> identify the security session/SA.
>>> Existing rte_flow usage: IP (dst,src) + ESP + SPI -> security
>>> processing enabled on one security session (ie on SA)
>>>
>>> The above rule would uniquely identify packets for an SA. But with the
>>> above usage, we would quickly exhaust entries available in h/w lookup
>>> tables (which are limited on our hardware). But if h/w can use SPI field to index
>> into a table (for example), then the above requirement of one rte_flow per SA is
>> not required.
>>> Proposed rte_flow usage: IP (any) + ESP + SPI (any) -> security
>>> processing enabled on all ESP packets
So this means that SA will be indexed only by spi? What about SA's which 
are indexed by SPI+DIP+SIP?
>>>
>>> Now h/w could use SPI to index into a pre-populated table to get
>>> security session. Please do note that, SPI is not ignored during the actual
>> lookup. Just that it is not used while creating 'rte_flow'.
>>
>> And this table will be prepopulated by user and pointer to it will be somehow
>> passed via rte_flow API?
>> If yes, then what would be the mechanism?
> [Anoob] I'm not sure what exactly you meant by user. But may be I'll explain how it's done in OCTEONTX2 PMD.
>
> The application would create security_session for every SA. SPI etc would be available to PMD (in conf) when the session is created. Now the PMD would populate SA related params in a specific location that h/w would access. This memory is allocated during device configure and h/w would have the pointer after the initialization is done.
If memory is allocated during device configure what is upper limit for 
number of sessions? What if app needs more?
>
> PMD uses SPI as index to write into specific locations(during session create) and h/w would use it when it sees an ESP packet eligible for SECURITY (in receive path, per packet). As long as session creation could populate at memory locations that h/w would look at, this scheme would work.
What algorithm of indexing by SPI is there? Could I use any arbitrary 
SPI? If some kind of hashing is used, what about collisions?
>   
>>> The usage of one 'rte_flow' for multiple SAs is not mandatory. It is
>>> only required when application requires large number of SAs. The proposed
>> change is to allow more efficient usage of h/w resources where it's permitted by
>> the PMD.
>>>>> Application should do an rte_flow_validate() to make sure the flow
>>>>> is supported on the PMD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoobj at marvell.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h | 6 ++++++
>>>>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
>>>>> b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h index 452d359..21fa7ed 100644
>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
>>>>> @@ -2239,6 +2239,12 @@ struct rte_flow_action_meter {
>>>>>    * direction.
>>>>>    *
>>>>>    * Multiple flows can be configured to use the same security session.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * The NULL value is allowed for security session. If security
>>>>> + session is NULL,
>>>>> + * then SPI field in ESP flow item and IP addresses in flow items
>>>>> + 'IPv4' and
>>>>> + * 'IPv6' will be allowed to be a range. The rule thus created
>>>>> + can enable
>>>>> + * SECURITY processing on multiple flows.
>>>>> + *
>>>>>    */
>>>>>   struct rte_flow_action_security {
>>>>>   	void *security_session; /**< Pointer to security session structure.
>>>>> */
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.7.4

-- 
Regards,
Vladimir