[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 02/10] security: add UDP params for IPsec NAT-T

[Ananyev, Konstantin]

> Add support for specifying UDP port params for UDP encapsulation option.
> RFC3948 section-2.1 does not enforce using specific the UDP ports for
> UDP-Encapsulated ESP Header
> 
> Signed-off-by: Declan Doherty <declan.doherty at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Abhijit Sinha <abhijit.sinha at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Martin Buckley <daniel.m.buckley at intel.com>
> Acked-by: Fan Zhang <roy.fan.zhang at intel.com>
> ---
>  lib/security/rte_security.h | 8 ++++++++
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/security/rte_security.h b/lib/security/rte_security.h
> index 495a228915..84ba1b08f8 100644
> --- a/lib/security/rte_security.h
> +++ b/lib/security/rte_security.h
> @@ -112,6 +112,12 @@ struct rte_security_ipsec_tunnel_param {
>  	};
>  };
> 
> +struct rte_security_ipsec_udp_param {
> +
> +	uint16_t sport;
> +	uint16_t dport;
> +};

Would it be worth to have ability to access 32-bits at once.
Something like:
union rte_security_ipsec_udp_param {
	uint32_t raw;
	struct {
		uint16_t sport, dport;
	};
};
?

> +
>  /**
>   * IPsec Security Association option flags
>   */
> @@ -224,6 +230,8 @@ struct rte_security_ipsec_xform {
>  	/**< IPsec SA Mode - transport/tunnel */
>  	struct rte_security_ipsec_tunnel_param tunnel;
>  	/**< Tunnel parameters, NULL for transport mode */
> +	struct rte_security_ipsec_udp_param udp;
> +	/**< UDP parameters, ignored when udp_encap option not specified */

Any reason to insert it into the middle of the xform struct?
Why not to the end?

>  	uint64_t esn_soft_limit;
>  	/**< ESN for which the overflow event need to be raised */
>  	uint32_t replay_win_sz;
> --
> 2.25.1