test/ipsec: fix test suite setup function
diff mbox series

Message ID 1547551191-28863-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com
State Superseded, archived
Delegated to: akhil goyal
Headers show
Series
  • test/ipsec: fix test suite setup function
Related show

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK
ci/Intel-compilation success Compilation OK
ci/mellanox-Performance-Testing success Performance Testing PASS
ci/intel-Performance-Testing success Performance Testing PASS

Commit Message

Bernard Iremonger Jan. 15, 2019, 11:19 a.m. UTC
Check for valid crypto_null devices before continuing.

Fixes: 05fe65eb66b2 ("test/ipsec: introduce functional test")
Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
---
 test/test/test_ipsec.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Ananyev, Konstantin Jan. 15, 2019, 11:55 a.m. UTC | #1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iremonger, Bernard
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 11:20 AM
> To: dev@dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> Cc: Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] test/ipsec: fix test suite setup function
> 
> Check for valid crypto_null devices before continuing.
> 
> Fixes: 05fe65eb66b2 ("test/ipsec: introduce functional test")
> Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
> ---
>  test/test/test_ipsec.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/test/test/test_ipsec.c b/test/test/test_ipsec.c
> index ff1a1c4..4dfc55b 100644
> --- a/test/test/test_ipsec.c
> +++ b/test/test/test_ipsec.c
> @@ -46,6 +46,8 @@
>  #define BURST_SIZE		32
>  #define REORDER_PKTS	1
> 
> +static int gbl_driver_id;
> +

Why do you need that global here?

>  struct user_params {
>  	enum rte_crypto_sym_xform_type auth;
>  	enum rte_crypto_sym_xform_type cipher;
> @@ -218,7 +220,7 @@ testsuite_setup(void)
>  {
>  	struct ipsec_testsuite_params *ts_params = &testsuite_params;
>  	struct rte_cryptodev_info info;
> -	uint32_t nb_devs, dev_id;
> +	uint32_t i, nb_devs, dev_id;
>  	size_t sess_sz;
> 
>  	memset(ts_params, 0, sizeof(*ts_params));
> @@ -251,7 +253,18 @@ testsuite_setup(void)
>  		return TEST_FAILED;
>  	}
> 
> -	ts_params->valid_devs[ts_params->valid_dev_count++] = 0;
> +	gbl_driver_id = rte_cryptodev_driver_id_get(
> +				RTE_STR(CRYPTODEV_NAME_NULL_PMD));
> +
> +	/* Create list of valid crypto devs */
> +	for (i = 0; i < nb_devs; i++) {
> +		rte_cryptodev_info_get(i, &info);
> +		if (info.driver_id == gbl_driver_id)
> +			ts_params->valid_devs[ts_params->valid_dev_count++] = i;
> +	}

I think you need to check driver capabilities, instead of relying on driver name.

> +
> +	if (ts_params->valid_dev_count < 1)
> +		return TEST_FAILED;
> 
>  	/* Set up all the qps on the first of the valid devices found */
>  	dev_id = ts_params->valid_devs[0];

If we always use just valid_dev[0] to determine private session size,
why do you keep going though all devs in the loop above?
Another thing, as I mentioned off-line - later you still use all vald_devs[]
to init session:
s = rte_cryptodev_sym_session_create(qp->mp_session);
        if (s == NULL)
                return -ENOMEM;

        /* initiliaze SA crypto session for all supported devices */
        for (i = 0; i != devnum; i++) {
                rc = rte_cryptodev_sym_session_init(devid[i], s,
                        ut->crypto_xforms, qp->mp_session_private);
                if (rc != 0)
                        break;
        }

I think we need either to determine max private session size based
on *all* valid_devs[], or just use one device that can do NULL algorithm.
As we always enqueue/dequeuer into valid_devs[0] - I think there is no point to have
an arrays here, just single valid_dev should be sufficient.
Konstantin
Bernard Iremonger Jan. 15, 2019, 12:34 p.m. UTC | #2
Hi Konstantin

<snip>

> > Subject: [PATCH] test/ipsec: fix test suite setup function
> >
> > Check for valid crypto_null devices before continuing.
> >
> > Fixes: 05fe65eb66b2 ("test/ipsec: introduce functional test")
> > Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  test/test/test_ipsec.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/test/test/test_ipsec.c b/test/test/test_ipsec.c index
> > ff1a1c4..4dfc55b 100644
> > --- a/test/test/test_ipsec.c
> > +++ b/test/test/test_ipsec.c
> > @@ -46,6 +46,8 @@
> >  #define BURST_SIZE		32
> >  #define REORDER_PKTS	1
> >
> > +static int gbl_driver_id;
> > +
> 
> Why do you need that global here?

test_ipsec.c is based on test_cryptodev.c.
gbl_driver_id used to store the ID of the required driver.

> 
> >  struct user_params {
> >  	enum rte_crypto_sym_xform_type auth;
> >  	enum rte_crypto_sym_xform_type cipher; @@ -218,7 +220,7 @@
> > testsuite_setup(void)  {
> >  	struct ipsec_testsuite_params *ts_params = &testsuite_params;
> >  	struct rte_cryptodev_info info;
> > -	uint32_t nb_devs, dev_id;
> > +	uint32_t i, nb_devs, dev_id;
> >  	size_t sess_sz;
> >
> >  	memset(ts_params, 0, sizeof(*ts_params)); @@ -251,7 +253,18 @@
> > testsuite_setup(void)
> >  		return TEST_FAILED;
> >  	}
> >
> > -	ts_params->valid_devs[ts_params->valid_dev_count++] = 0;
> > +	gbl_driver_id = rte_cryptodev_driver_id_get(
> > +				RTE_STR(CRYPTODEV_NAME_NULL_PMD));

These tests only work with the crypto_null  PMD's,  gbl_driver_id is set to the crypto_null PMD id here.

> > +
> > +	/* Create list of valid crypto devs */
> > +	for (i = 0; i < nb_devs; i++) {
> > +		rte_cryptodev_info_get(i, &info);
> > +		if (info.driver_id == gbl_driver_id)
> > +			ts_params->valid_devs[ts_params->valid_dev_count++]
> = i;
> > +	}
> 
> I think you need to check driver capabilities, instead of relying on driver name.

I don't think it is necessary to check the driver capabilities.
This is how it is done in test_cryptodev.c.
 I think it makes sense to mirror the test_cryptodev.c implementation. 
 
> > +
> > +	if (ts_params->valid_dev_count < 1)
> > +		return TEST_FAILED;
> >
> >  	/* Set up all the qps on the first of the valid devices found */
> >  	dev_id = ts_params->valid_devs[0];
> 
> If we always use just valid_dev[0] to determine private session size, why do you
> keep going though all devs in the loop above?

There may be several crypto devs present for example, crypto_aesni_mb0, crypto_aseni_mb1, crypto_null0 and  crypto_null1.
The valid_dev[] array will contain all devs of the requested type, in this case crypto_null0 and crypto_null1.

> Another thing, as I mentioned off-line - later you still use all vald_devs[] to init
> session:
> s = rte_cryptodev_sym_session_create(qp->mp_session);
>         if (s == NULL)
>                 return -ENOMEM;
> 
>         /* initiliaze SA crypto session for all supported devices */
>         for (i = 0; i != devnum; i++) {
>                 rc = rte_cryptodev_sym_session_init(devid[i], s,
>                         ut->crypto_xforms, qp->mp_session_private);
>                 if (rc != 0)
>                         break;
>         }
> 
> I think we need either to determine max private session size based on *all*
> valid_devs[], or just use one device that can do NULL algorithm.

The valid_devs[] array only contains crypto_null PMD's 
The code is using the crypto_null PMD only. 

> As we always enqueue/dequeuer into valid_devs[0] - I think there is no point to
> have an arrays here, just single valid_dev should be sufficient.

The test program may be started with several crypto_dev PMD's for example:

test -c f -n 4 --vdev crypto_aesni_mb0 --vdev crypto_null0 --vdev crypto_aesni_mb1 --vdev crypto_dev_null1

In this case the valid_devs[] array will contain crypto_dev_null0 and crypto_dev_null1.

> Konstantin
> 
> 

Regards,

Bernard.
Ananyev, Konstantin Jan. 15, 2019, 12:49 p.m. UTC | #3
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iremonger, Bernard
> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 12:34 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] test/ipsec: fix test suite setup function
> 
> Hi Konstantin
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > > Subject: [PATCH] test/ipsec: fix test suite setup function
> > >
> > > Check for valid crypto_null devices before continuing.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 05fe65eb66b2 ("test/ipsec: introduce functional test")
> > > Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  test/test/test_ipsec.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
> > >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/test/test/test_ipsec.c b/test/test/test_ipsec.c index
> > > ff1a1c4..4dfc55b 100644
> > > --- a/test/test/test_ipsec.c
> > > +++ b/test/test/test_ipsec.c
> > > @@ -46,6 +46,8 @@
> > >  #define BURST_SIZE		32
> > >  #define REORDER_PKTS	1
> > >
> > > +static int gbl_driver_id;
> > > +
> >
> > Why do you need that global here?
> 
> test_ipsec.c is based on test_cryptodev.c.
> gbl_driver_id used to store the ID of the required driver.

Sorry but referencing someone else code is not an answer.
Why do *you* need it *here*? 

> 
> >
> > >  struct user_params {
> > >  	enum rte_crypto_sym_xform_type auth;
> > >  	enum rte_crypto_sym_xform_type cipher; @@ -218,7 +220,7 @@
> > > testsuite_setup(void)  {
> > >  	struct ipsec_testsuite_params *ts_params = &testsuite_params;
> > >  	struct rte_cryptodev_info info;
> > > -	uint32_t nb_devs, dev_id;
> > > +	uint32_t i, nb_devs, dev_id;
> > >  	size_t sess_sz;
> > >
> > >  	memset(ts_params, 0, sizeof(*ts_params)); @@ -251,7 +253,18 @@
> > > testsuite_setup(void)
> > >  		return TEST_FAILED;
> > >  	}
> > >
> > > -	ts_params->valid_devs[ts_params->valid_dev_count++] = 0;
> > > +	gbl_driver_id = rte_cryptodev_driver_id_get(
> > > +				RTE_STR(CRYPTODEV_NAME_NULL_PMD));
> 
> These tests only work with the crypto_null  PMD's,  gbl_driver_id is set to the crypto_null PMD id here.
> 
> > > +
> > > +	/* Create list of valid crypto devs */
> > > +	for (i = 0; i < nb_devs; i++) {
> > > +		rte_cryptodev_info_get(i, &info);
> > > +		if (info.driver_id == gbl_driver_id)
> > > +			ts_params->valid_devs[ts_params->valid_dev_count++]
> > = i;
> > > +	}
> >
> > I think you need to check driver capabilities, instead of relying on driver name.
> 
> I don't think it is necessary to check the driver capabilities.

I still think that the valid way to check supported algorithms is to check device capabilities,
not the driver name.

> This is how it is done in test_cryptodev.c.
>  I think it makes sense to mirror the test_cryptodev.c implementation.
> 
> > > +
> > > +	if (ts_params->valid_dev_count < 1)
> > > +		return TEST_FAILED;
> > >
> > >  	/* Set up all the qps on the first of the valid devices found */
> > >  	dev_id = ts_params->valid_devs[0];
> >
> > If we always use just valid_dev[0] to determine private session size, why do you
> > keep going though all devs in the loop above?
> 
> There may be several crypto devs present for example, crypto_aesni_mb0, crypto_aseni_mb1, crypto_null0 and  crypto_null1.

Yes.

> The valid_dev[] array will contain all devs of the requested type, in this case crypto_null0 and crypto_null1.

But we need/use only one.

> 
> > Another thing, as I mentioned off-line - later you still use all vald_devs[] to init
> > session:
> > s = rte_cryptodev_sym_session_create(qp->mp_session);
> >         if (s == NULL)
> >                 return -ENOMEM;
> >
> >         /* initiliaze SA crypto session for all supported devices */
> >         for (i = 0; i != devnum; i++) {
> >                 rc = rte_cryptodev_sym_session_init(devid[i], s,
> >                         ut->crypto_xforms, qp->mp_session_private);
> >                 if (rc != 0)
> >                         break;
> >         }
> >
> > I think we need either to determine max private session size based on *all*
> > valid_devs[], or just use one device that can do NULL algorithm.
> 
> The valid_devs[] array only contains crypto_null PMD's
> The code is using the crypto_null PMD only.

In fact there is no reason to be crypto_null only.
I think it could be any crypto-dev that does support NULL auth/cipher.

> 
> > As we always enqueue/dequeuer into valid_devs[0] - I think there is no point to
> > have an arrays here, just single valid_dev should be sufficient.
> 
> The test program may be started with several crypto_dev PMD's for example:
> 
> test -c f -n 4 --vdev crypto_aesni_mb0 --vdev crypto_null0 --vdev crypto_aesni_mb1 --vdev crypto_dev_null1
> 
> In this case the valid_devs[] array will contain crypto_dev_null0 and crypto_dev_null1.
> 
> > Konstantin
> >
> >
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bernard.
Bernard Iremonger Jan. 17, 2019, 10:04 a.m. UTC | #4
Hi Konstantin,

<snip>

> > > > Subject: [PATCH] test/ipsec: fix test suite setup function
> > > >
> > > > Check for valid crypto_null devices before continuing.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 05fe65eb66b2 ("test/ipsec: introduce functional test")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  test/test/test_ipsec.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/test/test/test_ipsec.c b/test/test/test_ipsec.c index
> > > > ff1a1c4..4dfc55b 100644
> > > > --- a/test/test/test_ipsec.c
> > > > +++ b/test/test/test_ipsec.c
> > > > @@ -46,6 +46,8 @@
> > > >  #define BURST_SIZE		32
> > > >  #define REORDER_PKTS	1
> > > >
> > > > +static int gbl_driver_id;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Why do you need that global here?
> >
> > test_ipsec.c is based on test_cryptodev.c.
> > gbl_driver_id used to store the ID of the required driver.
> 
> Sorry but referencing someone else code is not an answer.
> Why do *you* need it *here*?

The global is not needed.
I have renamed it to driver_id and added it as a local variable where it is used.

> > > >  struct user_params {
> > > >  	enum rte_crypto_sym_xform_type auth;
> > > >  	enum rte_crypto_sym_xform_type cipher; @@ -218,7 +220,7 @@
> > > > testsuite_setup(void)  {
> > > >  	struct ipsec_testsuite_params *ts_params = &testsuite_params;
> > > >  	struct rte_cryptodev_info info;
> > > > -	uint32_t nb_devs, dev_id;
> > > > +	uint32_t i, nb_devs, dev_id;
> > > >  	size_t sess_sz;
> > > >
> > > >  	memset(ts_params, 0, sizeof(*ts_params)); @@ -251,7 +253,18 @@
> > > > testsuite_setup(void)
> > > >  		return TEST_FAILED;
> > > >  	}
> > > >
> > > > -	ts_params->valid_devs[ts_params->valid_dev_count++] = 0;
> > > > +	gbl_driver_id = rte_cryptodev_driver_id_get(
> > > > +				RTE_STR(CRYPTODEV_NAME_NULL_PMD));
> >
> > These tests only work with the crypto_null  PMD's,  gbl_driver_id is set to the
> crypto_null PMD id here.
> >
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* Create list of valid crypto devs */
> > > > +	for (i = 0; i < nb_devs; i++) {
> > > > +		rte_cryptodev_info_get(i, &info);
> > > > +		if (info.driver_id == gbl_driver_id)
> > > > +			ts_params->valid_devs[ts_params->valid_dev_count++]
> > > = i;
> > > > +	}
> > >
> > > I think you need to check driver capabilities, instead of relying on driver
> name.
> >
> > I don't think it is necessary to check the driver capabilities.
> 
> I still think that the valid way to check supported algorithms is to check device
> capabilities, not the driver name.

In the testsuite_setup() function the parameters for the check_cryptodev_capability() are not setup. They are setup in the test functions of the testsuite.
 
> > This is how it is done in test_cryptodev.c.
> >  I think it makes sense to mirror the test_cryptodev.c implementation.
> >
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (ts_params->valid_dev_count < 1)
> > > > +		return TEST_FAILED;
> > > >
> > > >  	/* Set up all the qps on the first of the valid devices found */
> > > >  	dev_id = ts_params->valid_devs[0];
> > >
> > > If we always use just valid_dev[0] to determine private session
> > > size, why do you keep going though all devs in the loop above?
> >
> > There may be several crypto devs present for example, crypto_aesni_mb0,
> crypto_aseni_mb1, crypto_null0 and  crypto_null1.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > The valid_dev[] array will contain all devs of the requested type, in this case
> crypto_null0 and crypto_null1.
> 
> But we need/use only one.

I will change the code to replace the valid_devs[] with one valid_dev.

> > > Another thing, as I mentioned off-line - later you still use all
> > > vald_devs[] to init
> > > session:
> > > s = rte_cryptodev_sym_session_create(qp->mp_session);
> > >         if (s == NULL)
> > >                 return -ENOMEM;
> > >
> > >         /* initiliaze SA crypto session for all supported devices */
> > >         for (i = 0; i != devnum; i++) {
> > >                 rc = rte_cryptodev_sym_session_init(devid[i], s,
> > >                         ut->crypto_xforms, qp->mp_session_private);
> > >                 if (rc != 0)
> > >                         break;
> > >         }
> > >
> > > I think we need either to determine max private session size based
> > > on *all* valid_devs[], or just use one device that can do NULL algorithm.
> >
> > The valid_devs[] array only contains crypto_null PMD's The code is
> > using the crypto_null PMD only.
> 
> In fact there is no reason to be crypto_null only.
> I think it could be any crypto-dev that does support NULL auth/cipher.

As discussed offline it should be sufficient to test with the crypto_dev NULL PMD.

> > > As we always enqueue/dequeuer into valid_devs[0] - I think there is
> > > no point to have an arrays here, just single valid_dev should be sufficient.
> >
> > The test program may be started with several crypto_dev PMD's for example:
> >
> > test -c f -n 4 --vdev crypto_aesni_mb0 --vdev crypto_null0 --vdev
> > crypto_aesni_mb1 --vdev crypto_dev_null1
> >
> > In this case the valid_devs[] array will contain crypto_dev_null0 and
> crypto_dev_null1.

I will replace the valid_devs[] with valid_dev which contains the first crypto_null device found.

I will send a v2 patch

Regards,

Bernard.
Ananyev, Konstantin Jan. 17, 2019, 10:30 a.m. UTC | #5
Hi Bernard,

> > > > > Subject: [PATCH] test/ipsec: fix test suite setup function
> > > > >
> > > > > Check for valid crypto_null devices before continuing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 05fe65eb66b2 ("test/ipsec: introduce functional test")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  test/test/test_ipsec.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
> > > > >  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/test/test/test_ipsec.c b/test/test/test_ipsec.c index
> > > > > ff1a1c4..4dfc55b 100644
> > > > > --- a/test/test/test_ipsec.c
> > > > > +++ b/test/test/test_ipsec.c
> > > > > @@ -46,6 +46,8 @@
> > > > >  #define BURST_SIZE		32
> > > > >  #define REORDER_PKTS	1
> > > > >
> > > > > +static int gbl_driver_id;
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > Why do you need that global here?
> > >
> > > test_ipsec.c is based on test_cryptodev.c.
> > > gbl_driver_id used to store the ID of the required driver.
> >
> > Sorry but referencing someone else code is not an answer.
> > Why do *you* need it *here*?
> 
> The global is not needed.
> I have renamed it to driver_id and added it as a local variable where it is used.
> 
> > > > >  struct user_params {
> > > > >  	enum rte_crypto_sym_xform_type auth;
> > > > >  	enum rte_crypto_sym_xform_type cipher; @@ -218,7 +220,7 @@
> > > > > testsuite_setup(void)  {
> > > > >  	struct ipsec_testsuite_params *ts_params = &testsuite_params;
> > > > >  	struct rte_cryptodev_info info;
> > > > > -	uint32_t nb_devs, dev_id;
> > > > > +	uint32_t i, nb_devs, dev_id;
> > > > >  	size_t sess_sz;
> > > > >
> > > > >  	memset(ts_params, 0, sizeof(*ts_params)); @@ -251,7 +253,18 @@
> > > > > testsuite_setup(void)
> > > > >  		return TEST_FAILED;
> > > > >  	}
> > > > >
> > > > > -	ts_params->valid_devs[ts_params->valid_dev_count++] = 0;
> > > > > +	gbl_driver_id = rte_cryptodev_driver_id_get(
> > > > > +				RTE_STR(CRYPTODEV_NAME_NULL_PMD));
> > >
> > > These tests only work with the crypto_null  PMD's,  gbl_driver_id is set to the
> > crypto_null PMD id here.
> > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* Create list of valid crypto devs */
> > > > > +	for (i = 0; i < nb_devs; i++) {
> > > > > +		rte_cryptodev_info_get(i, &info);
> > > > > +		if (info.driver_id == gbl_driver_id)
> > > > > +			ts_params->valid_devs[ts_params->valid_dev_count++]
> > > > = i;
> > > > > +	}
> > > >
> > > > I think you need to check driver capabilities, instead of relying on driver
> > name.
> > >
> > > I don't think it is necessary to check the driver capabilities.
> >
> > I still think that the valid way to check supported algorithms is to check device
> > capabilities, not the driver name.
> 
> In the testsuite_setup() function the parameters for the check_cryptodev_capability() are not setup. They are setup in the test functions of
> the testsuite.

Ok, so what prevents us to setup them earlier?

> 
> > > This is how it is done in test_cryptodev.c.
> > >  I think it makes sense to mirror the test_cryptodev.c implementation.
> > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	if (ts_params->valid_dev_count < 1)
> > > > > +		return TEST_FAILED;
> > > > >
> > > > >  	/* Set up all the qps on the first of the valid devices found */
> > > > >  	dev_id = ts_params->valid_devs[0];
> > > >
> > > > If we always use just valid_dev[0] to determine private session
> > > > size, why do you keep going though all devs in the loop above?
> > >
> > > There may be several crypto devs present for example, crypto_aesni_mb0,
> > crypto_aseni_mb1, crypto_null0 and  crypto_null1.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > The valid_dev[] array will contain all devs of the requested type, in this case
> > crypto_null0 and crypto_null1.
> >
> > But we need/use only one.
> 
> I will change the code to replace the valid_devs[] with one valid_dev.
> 
> > > > Another thing, as I mentioned off-line - later you still use all
> > > > vald_devs[] to init
> > > > session:
> > > > s = rte_cryptodev_sym_session_create(qp->mp_session);
> > > >         if (s == NULL)
> > > >                 return -ENOMEM;
> > > >
> > > >         /* initiliaze SA crypto session for all supported devices */
> > > >         for (i = 0; i != devnum; i++) {
> > > >                 rc = rte_cryptodev_sym_session_init(devid[i], s,
> > > >                         ut->crypto_xforms, qp->mp_session_private);
> > > >                 if (rc != 0)
> > > >                         break;
> > > >         }
> > > >
> > > > I think we need either to determine max private session size based
> > > > on *all* valid_devs[], or just use one device that can do NULL algorithm.
> > >
> > > The valid_devs[] array only contains crypto_null PMD's The code is
> > > using the crypto_null PMD only.
> >
> > In fact there is no reason to be crypto_null only.
> > I think it could be any crypto-dev that does support NULL auth/cipher.
> 
> As discussed offline it should be sufficient to test with the crypto_dev NULL PMD.

As we discussed  offline - yes, I don't think it's too excessive to verify ipsec_autotest
with each existing driver that supports _NULL algs, but I don't see the reason why
it shouldn't support anything except crypto_null.
Konstantin 

> 
> > > > As we always enqueue/dequeuer into valid_devs[0] - I think there is
> > > > no point to have an arrays here, just single valid_dev should be sufficient.
> > >
> > > The test program may be started with several crypto_dev PMD's for example:
> > >
> > > test -c f -n 4 --vdev crypto_aesni_mb0 --vdev crypto_null0 --vdev
> > > crypto_aesni_mb1 --vdev crypto_dev_null1
> > >
> > > In this case the valid_devs[] array will contain crypto_dev_null0 and
> > crypto_dev_null1.
> 
> I will replace the valid_devs[] with valid_dev which contains the first crypto_null device found.
> 
> I will send a v2 patch
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bernard.
Bernard Iremonger Jan. 17, 2019, 11:12 a.m. UTC | #6
Hi Konstantin,

<snip>

> > > > > I think you need to check driver capabilities, instead of
> > > > > relying on driver
> > > name.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it is necessary to check the driver capabilities.
> > >
> > > I still think that the valid way to check supported algorithms is to
> > > check device capabilities, not the driver name.
> >
> > In the testsuite_setup() function the parameters for the
> > check_cryptodev_capability() are not setup. They are setup in the test
> functions of the testsuite.
> 
> Ok, so what prevents us to setup them earlier?

This will require some refactoring of the tests, I will investigate.

<snip>

> > As discussed offline it should be sufficient to test with the crypto_dev NULL
> PMD.
> 
> As we discussed  offline - yes, I don't think it's too excessive to verify
> ipsec_autotest with each existing driver that supports _NULL algs, but I don't
> see the reason why it shouldn't support anything except crypto_null.
> Konstantin

Ok, I will investigate what needs to be done.

Regards,

Bernard.

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/test/test/test_ipsec.c b/test/test/test_ipsec.c
index ff1a1c4..4dfc55b 100644
--- a/test/test/test_ipsec.c
+++ b/test/test/test_ipsec.c
@@ -46,6 +46,8 @@ 
 #define BURST_SIZE		32
 #define REORDER_PKTS	1
 
+static int gbl_driver_id;
+
 struct user_params {
 	enum rte_crypto_sym_xform_type auth;
 	enum rte_crypto_sym_xform_type cipher;
@@ -218,7 +220,7 @@  testsuite_setup(void)
 {
 	struct ipsec_testsuite_params *ts_params = &testsuite_params;
 	struct rte_cryptodev_info info;
-	uint32_t nb_devs, dev_id;
+	uint32_t i, nb_devs, dev_id;
 	size_t sess_sz;
 
 	memset(ts_params, 0, sizeof(*ts_params));
@@ -251,7 +253,18 @@  testsuite_setup(void)
 		return TEST_FAILED;
 	}
 
-	ts_params->valid_devs[ts_params->valid_dev_count++] = 0;
+	gbl_driver_id = rte_cryptodev_driver_id_get(
+				RTE_STR(CRYPTODEV_NAME_NULL_PMD));
+
+	/* Create list of valid crypto devs */
+	for (i = 0; i < nb_devs; i++) {
+		rte_cryptodev_info_get(i, &info);
+		if (info.driver_id == gbl_driver_id)
+			ts_params->valid_devs[ts_params->valid_dev_count++] = i;
+	}
+
+	if (ts_params->valid_dev_count < 1)
+		return TEST_FAILED;
 
 	/* Set up all the qps on the first of the valid devices found */
 	dev_id = ts_params->valid_devs[0];