Hi Anoob,

-----Original Message-----
From: Anoob Joseph <redacted>
Sent: Friday 3 September 2021 11:05
To: Power, Ciara <redacted>; Akhil Goyal <redacted>;
Doherty, Declan [off-list ref]; Zhang, Roy Fan
[off-list ref]; Ananyev, Konstantin
[off-list ref]
Cc: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <redacted>; Archana Muniganti
[off-list ref]; Tejasree Kondoj [off-list ref]; Hemant
Agrawal [off-list ref]; Nicolau, Radu [off-list ref];
Gagandeep Singh [off-list ref]; dev@dpdk.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/5] test/crypto: add combined mode tests

Hi Ciara,

Please see inline.

Thanks,
Anoob

quoted

External Email

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Anoob,

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Anoob Joseph <redacted>
Sent: Friday 3 September 2021 05:47
To: Akhil Goyal <redacted>; Doherty, Declan
[off-list ref]; Zhang, Roy Fan [off-list ref];
Ananyev, Konstantin [off-list ref]
Cc: Anoob Joseph <redacted>; Jerin Jacob
[off-list ref]; Archana Muniganti [off-list ref];
Tejasree Kondoj [off-list ref]; Hemant Agrawal
[off-list ref]; Nicolau, Radu [off-list ref];
Power, Ciara [off-list ref]; Gagandeep Singh
[off-list ref]; dev@dpdk.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 2/5] test/crypto: add combined mode tests

Add framework to test IPsec features with all supported combinations
of

ciphers.

quoted

Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Tejasree Kondoj <redacted>
---

<snip>

quoted

+static int
+test_ipsec_proto_all(const struct ipsec_test_flags *flags) {
+	struct ipsec_test_data td_outb[IPSEC_TEST_PACKETS_MAX];
+	struct ipsec_test_data td_inb[IPSEC_TEST_PACKETS_MAX];
+	unsigned int i, nb_pkts = 1, pass_cnt = 0;
+	int ret;
+

Is this testcase actually running multiple testcases under the hood?
I wonder could it be suited to use a sub-testsuite structure to bring
the testcase results up to the top level, as done with cryptodev blockcipher

tests.

quoted

Have you considered this approach?

[Anoob] The idea behind this framework is to test an IPsec feature (like UDP
encapsulation) without tying it to any specific algorithm. So what this does is, it
loops over a list of possible combinations and then runs the test for each
combination. The test would be like this,

1. Do outbound processing to generate encrypted packet 2. Basic checks or
validation as required for the test (for example, with UDP encapsulation, we
would validate UDP hdr in the processed packet).
3. Any manipulations required (like for ICV corruption negative test) 4. Do
inbound processing to get decrypted packet 5. Validate results based on the type
of test (ICV corruption would give expect an error while normal tests would have
the operation return original plain text packet)

It's actually the array (aead_list) and this loop which initiates the test to be run for
all algos. And, since we are not having static vectors for each test case, this
approach seemed more straightforward. Do you think sub-testsuite makes more
sense here?

Thanks for the explanation.
I still think having each test reporting its individual result to the top level provides more clarity when running tests,
rather than having multiple tests being run under the disguise of one, and reporting one result.

Even without the sub-testsuite approach, I wonder could something such as the following be more descriptive when looking at results?

static struct unit_test_suite ipsec_proto_testsuite  = {
	.suite_name = "IPsec Proto Unit Test Suite",
	.setup = ipsec_proto_testsuite_setup,
	.unit_test_cases = {
		< Inbound known vector test cases as before >
		
		TEST_CASE_NAMED_WITH_DATA(
			"Combination test (AES-GCM 128)",
			ut_setup_security, ut_teardown,
			test_ipsec_proto_display_list, &aead_list[0]),
		TEST_CASE_NAMED_WITH_DATA(
			"Combination test (AES-GCM 192)",
			ut_setup_security, ut_teardown,
			test_ipsec_proto_display_list, &aead_list[1]),
		TEST_CASE_NAMED_WITH_DATA(
			"Combination test (AES-GCM 256)",
			ut_setup_security, ut_teardown,
			test_ipsec_proto_display_list, &aead_list[2]),

		TEST_CASE_NAMED_WITH_DATA(
			"IV Generation (AES-GCM 128)",
			ut_setup_security, ut_teardown,
			test_ipsec_proto_iv_gen, &aead_list[0]),

		etc.
}

static int
test_ipsec_proto_display_list(const void *data)
{
	struct ipsec_test_flags flags;

	memset(&flags, 0, sizeof(flags));

	flags.display_alg = true;

	return test_ipsec_proto(&flags, (const struct crypto_param *)data);
}

static int
test_ipsec_proto(const struct ipsec_test_flags *flags, const struct crypto_param *data)
{
	struct ipsec_test_data td_outb[IPSEC_TEST_PACKETS_MAX];
	struct ipsec_test_data td_inb[IPSEC_TEST_PACKETS_MAX];
	unsigned int i, nb_pkts = 1, pass_cnt = 0;
	int ret;

	if (flags->iv_gen)
		nb_pkts = IPSEC_TEST_PACKETS_MAX;

	
	test_ipsec_td_prepare(&data,
				      NULL,
				      flags,
				      td_outb,
				      nb_pkts);

< the rest of the function as before but without the loop, using data instead of looping aead values >


Thanks,
Ciara

quoted

Thanks,
Ciara

quoted

+	for (i = 0; i < RTE_DIM(aead_list); i++) {
+		test_ipsec_td_prepare(&aead_list[i],
+				      NULL,
+				      flags,
+				      td_outb,
+				      nb_pkts);
+
+		ret = test_ipsec_proto_process(td_outb, td_inb, nb_pkts,

true,

quoted

+					       flags);
+		if (ret == TEST_SKIPPED)
+			continue;
+
+		if (ret == TEST_FAILED)
+			return TEST_FAILED;
+
+		test_ipsec_td_update(td_inb, td_outb, nb_pkts, flags);
+
+		ret = test_ipsec_proto_process(td_inb, NULL, nb_pkts, true,
+					       flags);
+		if (ret == TEST_SKIPPED)
+			continue;
+
+		if (ret == TEST_FAILED)
+			return TEST_FAILED;
+
+		if (flags->display_alg)
+			test_ipsec_display_alg(&aead_list[i], NULL);
+
+		pass_cnt++;
+	}
+
+	if (pass_cnt > 0)
+		return TEST_SUCCESS;
+	else
+		return TEST_SKIPPED;
+}
+

<snip>