[dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 1/9] security: introduce CPU Crypto action type and API
konstantin.ananyev at intel.com
Fri Sep 6 15:27:07 CEST 2019
> > This action type allows the burst of symmetric crypto workload using the same
> > algorithm, key, and direction being processed by CPU cycles synchronously.
> > This flexible action type does not require external hardware involvement,
> > having the crypto workload processed synchronously, and is more performant
> > than Cryptodev SW PMD due to the saved cycles on removed "async mode
> > simulation" as well as 3 cacheline access of the crypto ops.
> Does that mean application will not call the cryptodev_enqueue_burst and corresponding dequeue burst.
Yes, instead it just call rte_security_process_cpu_crypto_bulk(...)
> It would be a new API something like process_packets and it will have the crypto processed packets while returning from the API?
Yes, though the plan is that API will operate on raw data buffers, not mbufs.
> I still do not understand why we cannot do with the conventional crypto lib only.
> As far as I can understand, you are not doing any protocol processing or any value add
> To the crypto processing. IMO, you just need a synchronous crypto processing API which
> Can be defined in cryptodev, you don't need to re-create a crypto session in the name of
> Security session in the driver just to do a synchronous processing.
I suppose your question is why not to have rte_crypot_process_cpu_crypto_bulk(...) instead?
The main reason is that would require disruptive changes in existing cryptodev API
(would cause ABI/API breakage).
Session for RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_CPU_CRYPTO need some extra information
that normal crypto_sym_xform doesn't contain
(cipher offset from the start of the buffer, might be something extra in future).
Also right now there is no way to add new type of crypto_sym_session without
either breaking existing crypto-dev ABI/API or introducing new structure
(rte_crypto_sym_cpu_session or so) for that.
While rte_security is designed in a way that we can add new session types and
related parameters without causing API/ABI breakage.
BTW, what is your concern with proposed approach (via rte_security)?
>From my perspective it is a lightweight change and it is totally optional
for the crypto PMDs to support it or not.
> > AESNI-GCM and AESNI-MB PMDs are updated with this support. There is a small
> > performance test app under app/test/security_aesni_gcm(mb)_perftest to
> > prove.
> > For the new API
> > The packet is sent to the crypto device for symmetric crypto
> > processing. The device will encrypt or decrypt the buffer based on the session
> > data specified and preprocessed in the security session. Different
> > than the inline or lookaside modes, when the function exits, the user will
> > expect the buffers are either processed successfully, or having the error number
> > assigned to the appropriate index of the status array.
> > Will update the program's guide in the v1 patch.
> > Regards,
> > Fan
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Akhil Goyal [mailto:akhil.goyal at nxp.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 11:33 AM
> > > To: Zhang, Roy Fan <roy.fan.zhang at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>; Doherty, Declan
> > > <declan.doherty at intel.com>; De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> > > <pablo.de.lara.guarch at intel.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 1/9] security: introduce CPU Crypto action type and
> > > API
> > >
> > > Hi Fan,
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This patch introduce new RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_CPU_CRYPTO
> > > action
> > > > type to security library. The type represents performing crypto
> > > > operation with CPU cycles. The patch also includes a new API to
> > > > process crypto operations in bulk and the function pointers for PMDs.
> > > >
> > > I am not able to get the flow of execution for this action type. Could you
> > > please elaborate the flow in the documentation. If not in documentation
> > > right now, then please elaborate the flow in cover letter.
> > > Also I see that there are new APIs for processing crypto operations in bulk.
> > > What does that mean. How are they different from the existing APIs which
> > > are also handling bulk crypto ops depending on the budget.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Akhil
More information about the dev