[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/8] security: add cpu crypto action type

[Akhil Goyal]

> Hi Marcin/Konstantin,
> 
> > Introduce CPU crypto action type allowing to differentiate between
> > regular async 'none security' and synchronous, CPU crypto accelerated
> > sessions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marcin Smoczynski <marcinx.smoczynski at intel.com>
> > Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev at intel.com>
> > Acked-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zhang at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  lib/librte_security/rte_security.h | 8 ++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.h b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.h
> > index 546779df2..c8b2dd5ed 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.h
> > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
> >  /* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> >   * Copyright 2017,2019 NXP
> > - * Copyright(c) 2017 Intel Corporation.
> > + * Copyright(c) 2017-2020 Intel Corporation.
> >   */
> >
> >  #ifndef _RTE_SECURITY_H_
> > @@ -307,10 +307,14 @@ enum rte_security_session_action_type {
> >  	/**< All security protocol processing is performed inline during
> >  	 * transmission
> >  	 */
> > -	RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_LOOKASIDE_PROTOCOL
> > +	RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_LOOKASIDE_PROTOCOL,
> >  	/**< All security protocol processing including crypto is performed
> >  	 * on a lookaside accelerator
> >  	 */
> > +	RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_CPU_CRYPTO
> > +	/**< Crypto processing for security protocol is processed by CPU
> > +	 * synchronously
> > +	 */
> I am not able to see the need for this enum.
> 
> It is used by the app and ipsec library to identify the cpu-crypto codepath.
> 
> I don't see any security action been performed for this action_type.
> 
> This enum is just like NONE which is not used beyond the application/lib.
> I think this needs to be documented properly in the description of the enum.
> 
> It should be something like
> 
> Similar to ACTION_TYPE_NONE, but the crypto processing is done on CPU
> Synchronously.
> 
> Also add documentation of this in the rte_security.rst in this patch only.
> There should not be any separate patch for documentation.
> 

Could you please send the update to the patches that I requested.
I wanted to apply these today.