[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 4/8] security: add cpu crypto action type
Akhil Goyal
akhil.goyal at nxp.com
Fri Jan 31 15:26:16 CET 2020
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.
Regards,
Akhil
More information about the dev
mailing list