[dpdk-dev] drivers/octeontx2: compilation fails without RTE_LIBRTE_SECURITY

Thierry Herbelot thierry.herbelot at 6wind.com
Thu Feb 6 15:56:01 CET 2020

On 2/6/20 3:48 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:06 PM Thierry Herbelot
> <thierry.herbelot at 6wind.com> wrote:
>> On 2/6/20 3:27 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 02:39:28PM +0100, Thierry Herbelot wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>> When RTE_LIBRTE_SECURITY is disabled, compilation fails for octeontx2 (on an
>>>> Intel machine):
>>>> git clone git://dpdk.org/dpdk
>>>> cd dpdk
>>>> make config T=x86_64-native-linux-gcc
>>>> cd build
>>>> vi .config
>>>> make
>>>> ...
>>>> == Build drivers/net/octeontx2
>>>>     CC otx2_rx.o
>>>> In file included from .../dpdk/drivers/net/octeontx2/otx2_ethdev_sec.h:10,
>>>>                    from .../dpdk/drivers/net/octeontx2/otx2_rx.h:11,
>>>>                    from .../dpdk/drivers/net/octeontx2/otx2_ethdev.h:24,
>>>>                    from .../dpdk/drivers/net/octeontx2/otx2_rx.c:7:
>>>> .../dpdk/drivers/crypto/octeontx2/otx2_ipsec_fp.h:9:10: fatal error:
>>>> rte_security.h: No such file or directory
>>>>    #include <rte_security.h>
>>>>             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> compilation terminated.
>>>> This seems cause by f44e7163775537 ('net/octeontx2: add security session
>>>> operations').
>>> Disabling parts of the build, particularly libraries, is always likely to
>>> cause other build failures. I'm not sure we should, or even need to,
>>> support the disabling of arbitrary libs in DPDK.
>> Hello,
>> On the other hand, there is no reason delivering unused code in a DPDK
>> application: an application should be free to select its needed 'modules'.
> Just to understand the use case, What would be the downside of
> compiling unwanted code?
> In meson, it takes only jiffies to compile code and If we use,
> -no-whole-archive then the generated binary will  not  be bloated,
> Considering the case where "make" build system will be deprecated soon
> and,  for meson, I don't think, we are
> planning to take the route of disabling the "core libraries".
> Could you share the real-world use for this?
> My only concern is we can not make tons of #define in the driver code.
> So, eventually, we end up
> disabling the driver.

Hello Jerin,

Our use case is that IPsec is provided as part of 6WIND stack, not using 
the version from DPDK (we are using the crypto PMDs from DPDK).

In any case, as the compilation of DPDK is (still) driven by a separate 
configuration file, it should be possible that some combination of 
options are disabled, and still DPDK builds fine.


>>          Thanks
>>          Thierry
>>> /Bruce

Thierry Herbelot
Senior Software Engineer

Tel: +33 1 39 30 92 61
Fax: +33 1 39 30 92 11
thierry.herbelot at 6wind.com
Immeuble Central Gare - Bât C 1, place Charles de Gaulle 78180 
Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France

Ce courriel ainsi que toutes les pièces jointes, est uniquement destiné 
à son ou ses destinataires. Il contient des informations confidentielles 
qui sont la propriété de 6WIND. Toute révélation, distribution ou copie 
des informations qu'il contient est strictement interdite. Si vous avez 
reçu ce message par erreur, veuillez immédiatement le signaler à 
l'émetteur et détruire toutes les données reçues

This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of 
the intended recipient(s) and contains information that is confidential 
and proprietary to 6WIND. All unauthorized review, use, disclosure or 
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the 
original message.

More information about the dev mailing list