From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5300CC4360C for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:20:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0BE620650 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:20:42 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F0BE620650 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dev-bounces@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CAD01E8F9; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 12:20:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D2981E8E0 for ; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 12:20:40 +0200 (CEST) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Oct 2019 03:20:39 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.67,303,1566889200"; d="scan'208";a="194799021" Received: from irsmsx110.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.25]) by fmsmga008.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2019 03:20:38 -0700 Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.252]) by irsmsx110.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.15.37]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 16 Oct 2019 11:20:37 +0100 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: Akhil Goyal , "Drost, MariuszX" , "Nicolau, Radu" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , Lukasz Bartosik Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2 1/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix SAD selection logic Thread-Index: AQHVcsP3rs+B25omiU24dVUeLGfYdKdT6yIAgAAwubCAAWbBgIAAO2lwgAYLkoCAAWcu8A== Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:20:37 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725801A8C696A3@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20190905123523.172-1-mariuszx.drost@intel.com> <20190924103539.12052-1-mariuszx.drost@intel.com> <20190924103539.12052-2-mariuszx.drost@intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580191975980@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580191975C03@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiYzFkMDU3ZmEtZDA5MS00M2Y0LThjOGYtMzQ0N2QwODNkY2ZkIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX05UIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE3LjEwLjE4MDQuNDkiLCJUcnVzdGVkTGFiZWxIYXNoIjoiRDJRWEZpSU5lYyszVVVCbWxKdjFmSTQ3dVIxYnlIelBDTFB1VTBvelwvOHJ2VVBLR2hlbmdTV29WbWcyUFZpaHIifQ== x-ctpclassification: CTP_NT dlp-product: dlpe-windows dlp-version: 11.2.0.6 dlp-reaction: no-action x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix SAD selection logic X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" >=20 > > > > Ok, so to confirm: > > Your only issue here is that patch is that we have to split ipsec-secgw= SADB into > > two? > > > > No objections to other part: > > - search for given SPI value across both SPDs (IPv4 and IPv6) > > - for each positive result create a new SA. > > So if we have same SPI in both IPv4 and IPv6 SPDs instead of one SA tha= t > > would be referred by both SPD tables (current situation), > > we will create 2 independent SAs - one for IPv4, second for IPv6. > > For each one a separate rte_security/crypto session will be created and > > programmed. > > ? > > > > Because, I think that part will still be needed even when will have new= SAD in > > place. > Agreed. Ok, then let's postpone this patch till new SAD will be in ipsec-secgw. Konstantin