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

[Nicolau, Radu]

On 9/23/2021 1:43 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
>> 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;
> 	};
> };
> ?

TBH I don't see any reason to access them as a 32b value...


>
>> +
>>   /**
>>    * 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?
I can't see any good reason I guess it just looked better, I will move 
it at the end.