> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shally Verma [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 9:18 AM
> To: Nowak, DamianX <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Cc: Trahe, Fiona <[email protected]>; Kusztal, ArkadiuszX
> <[email protected]>; Ayuj Verma <[email protected]>;
> Sunila Sahu <[email protected]>; Kanaka Durga Kotamarthy
> <[email protected]>; Anoob Joseph <[email protected]>;
> Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/1] test: new test structure for
> asymmetric crypto
>
> Hi Damian, Fiona, Arek
>
> Though am bit late to come back to this. But I have question on mod_exp test
> vector.
> Please see below.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dev <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Damian Nowak
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2019 3:15 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Damian Nowak
> > <[email protected]>
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/1] test: new test structure for
> > asymmetric crypto
> >
> > This patch adds new test structure for modexp and modinv for
> > asymmetric cryptography
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Damian Nowak <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > app/test/test_cryptodev.h | 1 +
> > app/test/test_cryptodev_asym.c | 318 ++++++++++
> > app/test/test_cryptodev_mod_test_vectors.h | 967
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 1286 insertions(+)
> >
> ...
>
> > REGISTER_TEST_COMMAND(cryptodev_openssl_asym_autotest,
> > test_cryptodev_openssl_asym);
> > +
> > +REGISTER_TEST_COMMAND(cryptodev_qat_asym_autotest,
> > test_cryptodev_qat_asym);
> > diff --git a/app/test/test_cryptodev_mod_test_vectors.h
> > b/app/test/test_cryptodev_mod_test_vectors.h
> > index a25c676..c66f4b1 100644
> > --- a/app/test/test_cryptodev_mod_test_vectors.h
> > +++ b/app/test/test_cryptodev_mod_test_vectors.h
> > @@ -1,10 +1,977 @@
> > /* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> > * Copyright(c) 2018 Cavium Networks
> > + * Copyright (c) 2019 Intel Corporation
> > */
> >
> > #ifndef TEST_CRYPTODEV_MOD_TEST_VECTORS_H_
> > #define TEST_CRYPTODEV_MOD_TEST_VECTORS_H_
> >
> > +#define DATA_SIZE 512
> > +
> ...
>
> > +static const struct
> > +modex_test_data modex_test_case[] = { {
> > + .description = "Modular Exponentiation "
> > + "(mod=128, base=20, exp=3, res=128)",
> > + .xform_type = RTE_CRYPTO_ASYM_XFORM_MODEX,
> ...
> > + .modulus = {
> > + .data = {
> > + 0xb3, 0xa1, 0xaf, 0xb7, 0x13, 0x08, 0x00, 0x0a,
> There's already a testvector mod_p[] in file with leading 0. Where as I see
> this one duplicate of that but without leading 0.
> Could you tell me if you ever tested with mod_p[] with leading 0 and if your
> qat PMD passed that?
[AK] - Hi Shally,
The problem with this vector is that it has 1024bit long number but
sizeof(mod_p) Is 129 bytes (1032 bit).
It is no problem for QAT to get correct result, but test will fail because QAT
PMD will return 129 bytes of date (with leading zero, number right-shifted) so
comparison will fail. This is the same question as padding NONE for RSA. Should
we trim zeroes, or shouldn't we.
>
> > + 0x35, 0xdc, 0x2b, 0x20, 0x8d, 0xa1, 0xb5, 0xce,
> > + 0x47, 0x8a, 0xc3, 0x80, 0xf4, 0x7d, 0x4a, 0xa2,
> > + 0x62, 0xfd, 0x61, 0x7f, 0xb5, 0xa8, 0xde, 0x0a,
> > + 0x17, 0x97, 0xa0, 0xbf, 0xdf, 0x56, 0x5a, 0x3d,
> > + 0x51, 0x56, 0x4f, 0x70, 0x70, 0x3f, 0x63, 0x6a,
> > + 0x44, 0x5b, 0xad, 0x84, 0x0d, 0x3f, 0x27, 0x6e,
> > + 0x3b, 0x34, 0x91, 0x60, 0x14, 0xb9, 0xaa, 0x72,
> > + 0xfd, 0xa3, 0x64, 0xd2, 0x03, 0xa7, 0x53, 0x87,
> > + 0x9e, 0x88, 0x0b, 0xc1, 0x14, 0x93, 0x1a, 0x62,
> > + 0xff, 0xb1, 0x5d, 0x74, 0xcd, 0x59, 0x63, 0x18,
> > + 0x11, 0x3d, 0x4f, 0xba, 0x75, 0xd4, 0x33, 0x4e,
> > + 0x23, 0x6b, 0x7b, 0x57, 0x44, 0xe1, 0xd3, 0x03,
> > + 0x13, 0xa6, 0xf0, 0x8b, 0x60, 0xb0, 0x9e, 0xee,
> > + 0x75, 0x08, 0x9d, 0x71, 0x63, 0x13, 0xcb, 0xa6,
> > + 0x81, 0x92, 0x14, 0x03, 0x22, 0x2d, 0xde, 0x55
> > + },
> > + .len = 128
> > + },
> > + .result_len = 128
> > +},
> ....
> > /* modular operation test data */
> > uint8_t base[] = {
> > 0xF8, 0xBA, 0x1A, 0x55, 0xD0, 0x2F, 0x85,
> > --
> > 2.7.4
