Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:24:45 -0700 From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> To: Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org> Cc: Neel Chauhan <neel@neelc.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: QAT driver Message-ID: <20201027162445.GN39170@kduck.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20201027130754.GE31663@raichu> References: <20201026200059.GA66299@raichu> <723fbd7326df42ce30cd5e361db9c736@neelc.org> <20201027032720.GB31663@raichu> <20201027045735.GJ39170@kduck.mit.edu> <20201027130754.GE31663@raichu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 09:07:54AM -0400, Mark Johnston wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 09:57:35PM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 11:27:20PM -0400, Mark Johnston wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 08:00:08PM -0700, Neel Chauhan wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > This is great news for me with my home HPE ML110 G10/Xeon 4108 server. > > > > > > > > However, I will not be able to test this patch unless it can get > > > > backported to 12.1 or 12.2 once it's out, and I don't expect backporting > > > > to happen. > > > > > > Indeed, it wouldn't appear before 12.3. > > > > > > > I have one question about this: will I be able to use this to accelerate > > > > OpenSSL? Is additional code needed? > > > > > > In principle OpenSSL can make use of cryptodev(4) using the cryptodev > > > engine, which would allow requests to be handled by qat(4) (or any other > > > hardware crypto driver loaded in the kernel). I don't know that the > > > cryptodev engine is really maintained these days though. More > > > > The openssl cryptodev engine was rewritten in > > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3744 , but engines are going to be > > deprecated in openssl 3.0. > > Is this the devcrypto engine? It appears to be broken on FreeBSD: it Yes, the devcrypto engine. > tries to invoke CIOCGSESSION on a /dev/crypto descriptor, but one is > supposed to first use CRIOGET to get a separate descriptor with which > sessions are associated. As the linked page says, "implemented based on cryptodev-linux and then adjusted to work on FreeBSD 8.4". I don't know of anyone testing it on a recent FreeBSD prior to your report. > truss(1)ing "openssl speed -evp aes-128-cbc -engine devcrypto" yields: > > 82677: openat(AT_FDCWD,"/dev/crypto",O_RDWR,00) = 3 (0x3) > 82677: ioctl(3,CIOCGSESSION,0x7fffffffde70) ERR#22 'Invalid argument' > 82677: ioctl(3,CIOCGSESSION,0x7fffffffde70) ERR#22 'Invalid argument' > 82677: ioctl(3,CIOCGSESSION,0x7fffffffde70) ERR#22 'Invalid argument' > 82677: ioctl(3,CIOCGSESSION,0x7fffffffde70) ERR#22 'Invalid argument' > 82677: ioctl(3,CIOCGSESSION,0x7fffffffde70) ERR#22 'Invalid argument' > ... > > > In theory someone (Intel?) could write an > > openssl "provider" that utilizes the QAT hardware, but (unsurprisingly, > > given that the interface isn't even finalized yet!) no one has done that > > yet. > > What's the difference between providers and engines? There is a QAT > engine for OpenSSL. OpenSSL is getting a big rearchitecture for the 3.0.0 release, and providers are the new way to provide external implementations for crypto algorithms and such; the openssl/provider interface is arguably cleaner and definitely more extensible than the openssl/engine interface. There's a bit more information at, e.g., https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/OpenSSL_3.0#Providers and https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2019/11/07/3.0-update/ (which links to https://www.openssl.org/docs/OpenSSL300Design.html). -Ben
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20201027162445.GN39170>