From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: OpenSSL libcrypto PMD name Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:14:46 +0200 Message-ID: <3540712.3nQULOpVav@xps13> References: <2254713.m5JxJRtkTJ@xps13> <2d5bb5ac-dd3a-19c7-9253-961110adc938@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org To: Declan Doherty Return-path: Received: from mail-lf0-f43.google.com (mail-lf0-f43.google.com [209.85.215.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC772B95 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:14:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lf0-f43.google.com with SMTP id b81so31034596lfe.1 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 02:14:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2d5bb5ac-dd3a-19c7-9253-961110adc938@intel.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2016-10-11 09:53, Declan Doherty: > On 10/10/16 12:36, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I would like to raise a naming issue in crypto. > > > > In the crypto side of DPDK, we have a library (similar to ethdev) > > for crypto API and device interface: > > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_cryptodev > > There are also some drivers (which are some libraries): > > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/drivers/crypto > > Most of them (6/8) are some DPDK wrappers for external libraries. > > > > Recently was introduced the libcrypto PMD which is a wrapper for > > the OpenSSL libcrypto. > > As we already have a lot of crypto libraries, I'm afraid the name > > libcrypto is really confusing. Why not call it openssl PMD? > > > > PS: I know OpenSSL has 2 libraries - ssl and crypto - but I do not > > expect any high-level SSL feature in a crypto driver. > > So drivers/crypto/openssl should not be confusing. > > > Hey Thomas, > > I can see the how this could get pretty confusion especially to those > not familiar with the implementation details. I think the current name > makes sense using the rational that we are only using the libcrypto > library from openssl and not libssl but it doesn't make things exactly > clear within DPDK. > > My thought is that we could just call the PMD "base_sw", as this is the > function which it is intended to provide, a base implementation of > algorithms for which there isn't an optimized/vectorised software > implementation or a fall back for systems which don't support the > required vector or CPU instructions for the optimized libraries. Also > this would allow us at a later date extend beyond the scope of Openssl > if required. Ah, I'm remembering that before creating a new library we should impose to define the scope first :) There are already some PMDs using other libraries. Do you really want to extend this one beyond of OpenSSL? It looks a weird use case to me. The question is: how do we choose a crypto library rather than another one? By the way, the name "base_sw" is worst :) Please call a marketing-qualified person ;)