Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] cryptodev: version cryptodev info get function

[Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>]

On 20/04/2020 17:54, Trahe, Fiona wrote:
> Hi Ray, Akhil,
> 
> 
>> On 20/04/2020 15:22, Akhil Goyal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This patch adds versioned function rte_cryptodev_info_get()
>>>> to prevent some issues with ABI policy.
>>>> Node v21 works in same way as before, returning driver capabilities
>>>> directly to the API caller. These capabilities may include new elements
>>>> not part of the v20 ABI.
>>>> Node v20 function maintains compatibility with v20 ABI releases
>>>> by stripping out elements not supported in v20 ABI. Because
>>>> rte_cryptodev_info_get is called by other API functions,
>>>> rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get function is versioned the same way.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Arek Kusztal <arkadiuszx.kusztal@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> v2:
>>>> - changed version numbers of symbols to 20.0.2
>>>> v3:
>>>> - added v2/v3 informations
>>>> - changed version numbers of symbols to 21
>>>> - fixed checkpatch issues
>>>>
>>>> This patch depends on following patches:
>>>>
>>>> [1] - "[v3] cryptodev: add chacha20-poly1305 aead algorithm"
>>>> (https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpatchwor
>>>> k.dpdk.org%2Fpatch%2F64549%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cakhil.goyal%40nxp.
>>>> com%7Ce6789fd42a5946c128e508d7e2dffe2f%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c
>>>> 5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C637227323980059545&amp;sdata=50eQJE7WHTME6d
>>>> qA7Nfk%2B50PVAyJrpKlMw%2BoGtA1%2FTc%3D&amp;reserved=0)
>>>
>>> Please include the dependent patches in a single series in your next version.
>>>>
>>>>  lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c           | 143 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>  lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.h           |  39 ++++++-
>>>>  lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_version.map |   7 ++
>>>>  3 files changed, 186 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
>>>> b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
>>>> index 6d1d0e9..b061447 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev.c
>>>> @@ -41,6 +41,9 @@
>>>>  #include "rte_cryptodev.h"
>>>>  #include "rte_cryptodev_pmd.h"
>>>>
>>>> +#include <rte_compat.h>
>>>> +#include <rte_function_versioning.h>
>>>> +
>>>>  static uint8_t nb_drivers;
>>>>
>>>>  static struct rte_cryptodev rte_crypto_devices[RTE_CRYPTO_MAX_DEVS];
>>>> @@ -56,6 +59,14 @@ static struct rte_cryptodev_global cryptodev_globals = {
>>>>  /* spinlock for crypto device callbacks */
>>>>  static rte_spinlock_t rte_cryptodev_cb_lock = RTE_SPINLOCK_INITIALIZER;
>>>>
>>>> +static const struct rte_cryptodev_capabilities
>>>> +		cryptodev_undefined_capabilities[] = {
>>>> +		RTE_CRYPTODEV_END_OF_CAPABILITIES_LIST()
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct rte_cryptodev_capabilities
>>>> +		*capability_copies[RTE_CRYPTO_MAX_DEVS];
>>>
>>> Capabilities_copy is a better name as it is copy of many capabilities.
> [Fiona] ok
> 
> 
>>>>  const struct rte_cryptodev_symmetric_capability *
>>>> -rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get(uint8_t dev_id,
>>>> +rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get_v20(uint8_t dev_id,
>>>
>>> __vsym Annotation to be used in a declaration of the internal symbol
>>> to signal that it is being used as an implementation of a particular
>>> version of symbol.
> [Fiona] ok
> 
> 
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	return NULL;
>>>> +
>>>
>>> Extra line
> [Fiona] ok
> 
>>>
>>>> +}
>>>> +VERSION_SYMBOL(rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get, _v20, 20.0);
>>>> +
>>>> +const struct rte_cryptodev_symmetric_capability *
>>>
>>> __vsym annotation
> [Fiona] ok
> 
> 
>>>
>>>> +rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get_v21(uint8_t dev_id,
>>>>  		const struct rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_idx *idx)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	const struct rte_cryptodev_capabilities *capability;
>>>> @@ -313,6 +360,10 @@ rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get(uint8_t dev_id,
>>>>  	return NULL;
>>>>
>>>>  }
>>>> +MAP_STATIC_SYMBOL(const struct rte_cryptodev_symmetric_capability *
>>>> +		rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get(uint8_t dev_id,
>>>> +		const struct rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_idx *idx),
>>>> +		rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get_v21);
>>>>
>>>>  static int
>>>>  param_range_check(uint16_t size, const struct rte_crypto_param_range *range)
>>>> @@ -999,6 +1050,13 @@ rte_cryptodev_close(uint8_t dev_id)
>>>>  	RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*dev->dev_ops->dev_close, -ENOTSUP);
>>>>  	retval = (*dev->dev_ops->dev_close)(dev);
>>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (capability_copies[dev_id]) {
>>>> +		free(capability_copies[dev_id]);
>>>> +		capability_copies[dev_id] = NULL;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +	is_capability_checked[dev_id] = 0;
>>>> +
>>>>  	if (retval < 0)
>>>>  		return retval;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -1111,9 +1169,61 @@ rte_cryptodev_stats_reset(uint8_t dev_id)
>>>>  	(*dev->dev_ops->stats_reset)(dev);
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> +static void
>>>> +get_v20_capabilities(uint8_t dev_id, struct rte_cryptodev_info *dev_info)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	const struct rte_cryptodev_capabilities *capability;
>>>> +	uint8_t found_invalid_capa = 0;
>>>> +	uint8_t counter = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +	for (capability = dev_info->capabilities;
>>>> +			capability->op != RTE_CRYPTO_OP_TYPE_UNDEFINED;
>>>> +			++capability, ++counter) {
>>>> +		if (capability->op == RTE_CRYPTO_OP_TYPE_SYMMETRIC &&
>>>> +				capability->sym.xform_type ==
>>>> +					RTE_CRYPTO_SYM_XFORM_AEAD
>>>> +				&& capability->sym.aead.algo >=
>>>> +				RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305) {
>>>> +			found_invalid_capa = 1;
>>>> +			counter--;
>>>> +		}
>>>> +	}
>>>> +	is_capability_checked[dev_id] = 1;
>>>> +	if (found_invalid_capa) {
>>>
>>> Code becomes unreadable due to indentation which can be avoided.
> [Fiona] ok
> 
> 
> 
>>>> +void
>>>> +rte_cryptodev_info_get_v21(uint8_t dev_id, struct rte_cryptodev_info
>>>> *dev_info);
>>>> +BIND_DEFAULT_SYMBOL(rte_cryptodev_info_get, _v21, 21);
>>>
>>> I am not sure if we need to bind for _v20 also
>>> BIND_DEFAULT_SYMBOL(rte_cryptodev_info_get, _v20, 20);
>>
>> The correct call to VERSION_SYMBOL is already above.
> [Fiona] ok, so won't do this.
> 
> 
>>> Ray, can you please suggest if it required or not? And what all we need to check?
>>
>> See below.
>>
>>>
>>> The patch is still showing Incompatibilities
>>> NOTICE: ABI may be incompatible, check reports/logs for details.
>>> NOTICE: Incompatible list:  librte_cryptodev.so
>>
>> So I looked through the issues it is complaining about, these are here.
>> https://travis-ci.com/github/ovsrobot/dpdk/jobs/320526253#L4540
>>
>> Basically they all are warnings related to the changes to the enumeration
>> rte_crypto_aead_algorithm.
>>
>> Essentially the new member RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_CHACHA20_POLY1305.
>> The change to the end value RTE_CRYPTO_AEAD_LIST_END.
>> Members of this type "enum rte_crypto_aead_algorithm algo" are demeeded to also have changed,
>> but they haven't.
>>
>> With the additional work to create the v20 version of rte_cryptodev_info_get.
>> I think all reasonable steps have been been taken here.
> [Fiona] Do we need to change the tool or somehow mark as a false positive?

Yes, I will take a look at it. 

> 
> 
>>>>  /**
>>>>   * Register a callback function for specific device id.
>>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_version.map
>>>> b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_version.map
>>>> index 6e41b4b..512a4a7 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_version.map
>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_cryptodev/rte_cryptodev_version.map
>>>> @@ -58,6 +58,13 @@ DPDK_20.0 {
>>>>  	local: *;
>>>>  };
>>>>
>>>> +DPDK_21 {
>>
>> Should be DPDK_21.0
> [Fiona] Can you explain why?
> I thought it could go back to a 2-number system with _v21 ABI.
> I thought we'd clarified that DPDK_20.0 is only there due to a mistake, that should have been DPDK_20.
>  
> 
>>>> +	global:
>>>> +	rte_cryptodev_info_get;
>>>> +	rte_cryptodev_sym_capability_get;
>>>> +} DPDK_20.0;
>>>> +
>>>> +
>>>>  EXPERIMENTAL {
>>>>  	global:
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 2.1.0
>>>