[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 06/10] ipsec: add transmit segmentation offload support
Ananyev, Konstantin
konstantin.ananyev at intel.com
Wed Sep 29 00:24:58 CEST 2021
> On 9/23/2021 3:09 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> >
> >> Add support for transmit segmentation offload to inline crypto processing
> >> mode. This offload is not supported by other offload modes, as at a
> >> minimum it requires inline crypto for IPsec to be supported on the
> >> network interface.
> >>
> >> 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/ipsec/esp_inb.c | 4 +-
> >> lib/ipsec/esp_outb.c | 115 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >> lib/ipsec/iph.h | 10 +++-
> >> lib/ipsec/sa.c | 6 +++
> >> lib/ipsec/sa.h | 4 ++
> >> 5 files changed, 114 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/lib/ipsec/esp_inb.c b/lib/ipsec/esp_inb.c
> >> index d66c88f05d..a6ab8fbdd5 100644
> >> --- a/lib/ipsec/esp_inb.c
> >> +++ b/lib/ipsec/esp_inb.c
> >> @@ -668,8 +668,8 @@ trs_process(const struct rte_ipsec_sa *sa, struct rte_mbuf *mb[],
> >> /* modify packet's layout */
> >> np = trs_process_step2(mb[i], ml[i], hl[i], cofs,
> >> to[i], tl, sqn + k);
> >> - update_trs_l3hdr(sa, np + l2, mb[i]->pkt_len,
> >> - l2, hl[i] - l2, espt[i].next_proto);
> >> + update_trs_l34hdrs(sa, np + l2, mb[i]->pkt_len,
> >> + l2, hl[i] - l2, espt[i].next_proto, 0);
> >>
> >> /* update mbuf's metadata */
> >> trs_process_step3(mb[i]);
> >> diff --git a/lib/ipsec/esp_outb.c b/lib/ipsec/esp_outb.c
> >> index a3f77469c3..9fc7075796 100644
> >> --- a/lib/ipsec/esp_outb.c
> >> +++ b/lib/ipsec/esp_outb.c
> >> @@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
> >> * Copyright(c) 2018-2020 Intel Corporation
> >> */
> >>
> >> +#include <math.h>
> >> +
> >> #include <rte_ipsec.h>
> >> #include <rte_esp.h>
> >> #include <rte_ip.h>
> >> @@ -156,11 +158,20 @@ outb_tun_pkt_prepare(struct rte_ipsec_sa *sa, rte_be64_t sqc,
> >>
> >> /* number of bytes to encrypt */
> >> clen = plen + sizeof(*espt);
> >> - clen = RTE_ALIGN_CEIL(clen, sa->pad_align);
> >> +
> >> + /* We don't need to pad/ailgn packet when using TSO offload */
> >> + if (likely(!(mb->ol_flags & (PKT_TX_TCP_SEG | PKT_TX_UDP_SEG))))
> >> + clen = RTE_ALIGN_CEIL(clen, sa->pad_align);
> >> +
> > Here and everywhere:
> > It doesn't look nice that we have to pollute generic functions with
> > checking TSO specific flags all over the place.
> > Can we probably have a specific prepare/process function for inline+tso case?
> > As we do have for cpu and inline cases right now.
> > Or just update inline version?
> I looked at doing this but unless I copy these 2 functions I can't move
> this out.
> >
> >> /* pad length + esp tail */
> >> pdlen = clen - plen;
> >> - tlen = pdlen + sa->icv_len + sqh_len;
> >> +
> >> + /* We don't append ICV length when using TSO offload */
> >> + if (likely(!(mb->ol_flags & (PKT_TX_TCP_SEG | PKT_TX_UDP_SEG))))
> >> + tlen = pdlen + sa->icv_len + sqh_len;
> >> + else
> >> + tlen = pdlen + sqh_len;
> >>
> >> /* do append and prepend */
> >> ml = rte_pktmbuf_lastseg(mb);
> >> @@ -337,6 +348,7 @@ outb_trs_pkt_prepare(struct rte_ipsec_sa *sa, rte_be64_t sqc,
> >> char *ph, *pt;
> >> uint64_t *iv;
> >> uint32_t l2len, l3len;
> >> + uint8_t tso = mb->ol_flags & (PKT_TX_TCP_SEG | PKT_TX_UDP_SEG) ? 1 : 0;
> >>
> >> l2len = mb->l2_len;
> >> l3len = mb->l3_len;
> >> @@ -349,11 +361,19 @@ outb_trs_pkt_prepare(struct rte_ipsec_sa *sa, rte_be64_t sqc,
> >>
> >> /* number of bytes to encrypt */
> >> clen = plen + sizeof(*espt);
> >> - clen = RTE_ALIGN_CEIL(clen, sa->pad_align);
> >> +
> >> + /* We don't need to pad/ailgn packet when using TSO offload */
> >> + if (likely(!tso))
> >> + clen = RTE_ALIGN_CEIL(clen, sa->pad_align);
> >>
> >> /* pad length + esp tail */
> >> pdlen = clen - plen;
> >> - tlen = pdlen + sa->icv_len + sqh_len;
> >> +
> >> + /* We don't append ICV length when using TSO offload */
> >> + if (likely(!tso))
> >> + tlen = pdlen + sa->icv_len + sqh_len;
> >> + else
> >> + tlen = pdlen + sqh_len;
> >>
> >> /* do append and insert */
> >> ml = rte_pktmbuf_lastseg(mb);
> >> @@ -375,8 +395,8 @@ outb_trs_pkt_prepare(struct rte_ipsec_sa *sa, rte_be64_t sqc,
> >> insert_esph(ph, ph + hlen, uhlen);
> >>
> >> /* update ip header fields */
> >> - np = update_trs_l3hdr(sa, ph + l2len, mb->pkt_len - sqh_len, l2len,
> >> - l3len, IPPROTO_ESP);
> >> + np = update_trs_l34hdrs(sa, ph + l2len, mb->pkt_len - sqh_len, l2len,
> >> + l3len, IPPROTO_ESP, tso);
> >>
> >> /* update spi, seqn and iv */
> >> esph = (struct rte_esp_hdr *)(ph + uhlen);
> >> @@ -651,6 +671,33 @@ inline_outb_mbuf_prepare(const struct rte_ipsec_session *ss,
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> +/* check if packet will exceed MSS and segmentation is required */
> >> +static inline int
> >> +esn_outb_nb_segments(const struct rte_ipsec_sa *sa, struct rte_mbuf *m) {
> >> + uint16_t segments = 1;
> >> + uint16_t pkt_l3len = m->pkt_len - m->l2_len;
> >> +
> >> + /* Only support segmentation for UDP/TCP flows */
> >> + if (!(m->packet_type & (RTE_PTYPE_L4_UDP | RTE_PTYPE_L4_TCP)))
> >> + return segments;
> >> +
> >> + if (sa->tso.enabled && pkt_l3len > sa->tso.mss) {
> >> + segments = ceil((float)pkt_l3len / sa->tso.mss);
> > Float calculations in the middle of data-path?
> > Just to calculate roundup?
> > Doesn't look good to me at all.
> It doesn't look good to me either - I will rework it.
> >
> >> +
> >> + if (m->packet_type & RTE_PTYPE_L4_TCP) {
> >> + m->ol_flags |= (PKT_TX_TCP_SEG | PKT_TX_TCP_CKSUM);
> > That's really strange - why ipsec library will set PKT_TX_TCP_SEG unconditionally?
> > That should be responsibility of the upper layer, I think.
> > In the lib we should only check was tso requested for that packet or not.
> > Same for UDP.
> These are under an if(TSO) condition.
> >
> >> + m->l4_len = sizeof(struct rte_tcp_hdr);
> > Hmm, how do we know there are no TCP options present for that packet?
> > Wouldn't it be better to expect user to provide proper l4_len for such packets?
> You're right, I will update it.
>
> >
> >> + } else {
> >> + m->ol_flags |= (PKT_TX_UDP_SEG | PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM);
> >> + m->l4_len = sizeof(struct rte_udp_hdr);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + m->tso_segsz = sa->tso.mss;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return segments;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> /*
> >> * process group of ESP outbound tunnel packets destined for
> >> * INLINE_CRYPTO type of device.
> >> @@ -660,24 +707,29 @@ inline_outb_tun_pkt_process(const struct rte_ipsec_session *ss,
> >> struct rte_mbuf *mb[], uint16_t num)
> >> {
> >> int32_t rc;
> >> - uint32_t i, k, n;
> >> + uint32_t i, k, nb_sqn = 0, nb_sqn_alloc;
> >> uint64_t sqn;
> >> rte_be64_t sqc;
> >> struct rte_ipsec_sa *sa;
> >> union sym_op_data icv;
> >> uint64_t iv[IPSEC_MAX_IV_QWORD];
> >> uint32_t dr[num];
> >> + uint16_t nb_segs[num];
> >>
> >> sa = ss->sa;
> >>
> >> - n = num;
> >> - sqn = esn_outb_update_sqn(sa, &n);
> >> - if (n != num)
> >> + for (i = 0; i != num; i++) {
> >> + nb_segs[i] = esn_outb_nb_segments(sa, mb[i]);
> >> + nb_sqn += nb_segs[i];
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + nb_sqn_alloc = nb_sqn;
> >> + sqn = esn_outb_update_sqn(sa, &nb_sqn_alloc);
> >> + if (nb_sqn_alloc != nb_sqn)
> >> rte_errno = EOVERFLOW;
> >>
> >> k = 0;
> >> - for (i = 0; i != n; i++) {
> >> -
> >> + for (i = 0; i != num; i++) {
> >> sqc = rte_cpu_to_be_64(sqn + i);
> >> gen_iv(iv, sqc);
> >>
> >> @@ -691,11 +743,18 @@ inline_outb_tun_pkt_process(const struct rte_ipsec_session *ss,
> >> dr[i - k] = i;
> >> rte_errno = -rc;
> >> }
> >> +
> >> + /**
> >> + * If packet is using tso, increment sqn by the number of
> >> + * segments for packet
> >> + */
> >> + if (mb[i]->ol_flags & (PKT_TX_TCP_SEG | PKT_TX_UDP_SEG))
> >> + sqn += nb_segs[i] - 1;
> >> }
> >>
> >> /* copy not processed mbufs beyond good ones */
> >> - if (k != n && k != 0)
> >> - move_bad_mbufs(mb, dr, n, n - k);
> >> + if (k != num && k != 0)
> >> + move_bad_mbufs(mb, dr, num, num - k);
> >>
> >> inline_outb_mbuf_prepare(ss, mb, k);
> >> return k;
> >> @@ -710,23 +769,30 @@ inline_outb_trs_pkt_process(const struct rte_ipsec_session *ss,
> >> struct rte_mbuf *mb[], uint16_t num)
> >> {
> >> int32_t rc;
> >> - uint32_t i, k, n;
> >> + uint32_t i, k, nb_sqn, nb_sqn_alloc;
> >> uint64_t sqn;
> >> rte_be64_t sqc;
> >> struct rte_ipsec_sa *sa;
> >> union sym_op_data icv;
> >> uint64_t iv[IPSEC_MAX_IV_QWORD];
> >> uint32_t dr[num];
> >> + uint16_t nb_segs[num];
> >>
> >> sa = ss->sa;
> >>
> >> - n = num;
> >> - sqn = esn_outb_update_sqn(sa, &n);
> >> - if (n != num)
> >> + /* Calculate number of sequence numbers required */
> >> + for (i = 0, nb_sqn = 0; i != num; i++) {
> >> + nb_segs[i] = esn_outb_nb_segments(sa, mb[i]);
> >> + nb_sqn += nb_segs[i];
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + nb_sqn_alloc = nb_sqn;
> >> + sqn = esn_outb_update_sqn(sa, &nb_sqn_alloc);
> >> + if (nb_sqn_alloc != nb_sqn)
> >> rte_errno = EOVERFLOW;
> >>
> >> k = 0;
> >> - for (i = 0; i != n; i++) {
> >> + for (i = 0; i != num; i++) {
> >>
> >> sqc = rte_cpu_to_be_64(sqn + i);
> >> gen_iv(iv, sqc);
> >> @@ -741,11 +807,18 @@ inline_outb_trs_pkt_process(const struct rte_ipsec_session *ss,
> >> dr[i - k] = i;
> >> rte_errno = -rc;
> >> }
> >> +
> >> + /**
> >> + * If packet is using tso, increment sqn by the number of
> >> + * segments for packet
> >> + */
> >> + if (mb[i]->ol_flags & (PKT_TX_TCP_SEG | PKT_TX_UDP_SEG))
> >> + sqn += nb_segs[i] - 1;
> >> }
> >>
> >> /* copy not processed mbufs beyond good ones */
> >> - if (k != n && k != 0)
> >> - move_bad_mbufs(mb, dr, n, n - k);
> >> + if (k != num && k != 0)
> >> + move_bad_mbufs(mb, dr, num, num - k);
> >>
> >> inline_outb_mbuf_prepare(ss, mb, k);
> >> return k;
> >> diff --git a/lib/ipsec/iph.h b/lib/ipsec/iph.h
> >> index 861f16905a..2d223199ac 100644
> >> --- a/lib/ipsec/iph.h
> >> +++ b/lib/ipsec/iph.h
> >> @@ -6,6 +6,8 @@
> >> #define _IPH_H_
> >>
> >> #include <rte_ip.h>
> >> +#include <rte_udp.h>
> >> +#include <rte_tcp.h>
> >>
> >> /**
> >> * @file iph.h
> >> @@ -39,8 +41,8 @@ insert_esph(char *np, char *op, uint32_t hlen)
> >>
> >> /* update original ip header fields for transport case */
> >> static inline int
> >> -update_trs_l3hdr(const struct rte_ipsec_sa *sa, void *p, uint32_t plen,
> >> - uint32_t l2len, uint32_t l3len, uint8_t proto)
> >> +update_trs_l34hdrs(const struct rte_ipsec_sa *sa, void *p, uint32_t plen,
> >> + uint32_t l2len, uint32_t l3len, uint8_t proto, uint8_t tso)
> > Hmm... why to change name of the function?
> >
> >> {
> >> int32_t rc;
> >>
> >> @@ -51,6 +53,10 @@ update_trs_l3hdr(const struct rte_ipsec_sa *sa, void *p, uint32_t plen,
> >> v4h = p;
> >> rc = v4h->next_proto_id;
> >> v4h->next_proto_id = proto;
> >> + if (tso) {
> >> + v4h->hdr_checksum = 0;
> >> + v4h->total_length = 0;
> > total_len will be overwritten unconditionally at next line below.
> >
> > Another question - why it is necessary?
> > Is it HW specific requirment or ... ?
> It looks wrong I will rewrite this.
> >
> >
> >> + }
> >> v4h->total_length = rte_cpu_to_be_16(plen - l2len);
> >
> >> /* IPv6 */
> >> } else {
> >> diff --git a/lib/ipsec/sa.c b/lib/ipsec/sa.c
> >> index 720e0f365b..2ecbbce0a4 100644
> >> --- a/lib/ipsec/sa.c
> >> +++ b/lib/ipsec/sa.c
> >> @@ -565,6 +565,12 @@ rte_ipsec_sa_init(struct rte_ipsec_sa *sa, const struct rte_ipsec_sa_prm *prm,
> >> sa->type = type;
> >> sa->size = sz;
> >>
> >> +
> >> + if (prm->ipsec_xform.options.tso == 1) {
> >> + sa->tso.enabled = 1;
> >> + sa->tso.mss = prm->ipsec_xform.mss;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> /* check for ESN flag */
> >> sa->sqn_mask = (prm->ipsec_xform.options.esn == 0) ?
> >> UINT32_MAX : UINT64_MAX;
> >> diff --git a/lib/ipsec/sa.h b/lib/ipsec/sa.h
> >> index 107ebd1519..5e237f3525 100644
> >> --- a/lib/ipsec/sa.h
> >> +++ b/lib/ipsec/sa.h
> >> @@ -113,6 +113,10 @@ struct rte_ipsec_sa {
> >> uint8_t iv_len;
> >> uint8_t pad_align;
> >> uint8_t tos_mask;
> >> + struct {
> >> + uint8_t enabled:1;
> >> + uint16_t mss;
> >> + } tso;
> > Wouldn't one field be enough?
> > uint16_t tso_mss;
> > And it it is zero, then tso is disabled.
> > In fact, do we need it at all?
> > Wouldn't it be better to request user to fill mbuf->tso_segsz properly for us?
>
> We added an option to rte_security_ipsec_sa_options to allow the user to
> enable TSO per SA and specify the MSS in the sessions parameters.
After another thought, it doesn’t look like a good approach to me:
from one side same SA can be used for multiple IP addresses,
from other side - MSS value can differ on a per connection basis.
So different TCP connections within same SA can easily have different MSS values.
So I think we shouldn't save mss in SA at all.
Instead, we probably need to request user to fill mbuf->tso_segsz for us.
>
> We can request user to fill mbuf->tso_segsz, but with this patch we are
> doing it for the user.
>
> >
> >> /* template for tunnel header */
> >> uint8_t hdr[IPSEC_MAX_HDR_SIZE];
> >> --
> >> 2.25.1
More information about the dev
mailing list