lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:21:54 +0100 From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com> To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, klassert@...hematik.tu-chemnitz.de Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] IPsec parallelization On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 04:50:52PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > > This achieves exactly the same thing as your current patch-set > > > plus: > > > > > > 1) The uesr no longer has to make a system-wide choice of whether > > > to enable this, instead the control is per-SA through the usual > > > algorithm selection mechanism which means that this no longer > > > conflicts with async crypto; > > > > > > 2) There is no change to the xfrm code; > > > > > > 3) The same mechanism can benefit other crypto users such as > > > disk encryption. > > > > The padata stuff is generic, so it can be used even for disk > > encryption or for anything else that should run in parallel but > > needs a certain order at a given point. > > What about the first issue? > Yes, that's a point. If it is in the network layer we probaply need this system-wide choice because it would bring a useless overhead to the sk_buff if this thing is not used. So this could be a plus for putting it to the crypto layer if we don't need this system-wide choice there. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists