linux-kernel - [CRYPTO] is it really optimized ?

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <38b2ab8a0704121239sd848440t6ed23d71dc68798c@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:39:24 +0200
From:	"Francis Moreau" <francis.moro@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [CRYPTO] is it really optimized ?

Hi,

After reading the crypto code and trying to implement a AES driver,
I'm wondering if the current  implementation is optimum. My plan is to
use _exclusively_ the AES driver to encrypt filesystems by using
eCryptfs for example.

But it seems that because the current implementation of the crypto
core allows the drivers to be accessed by any part of the kernel at
any time, that forces the AES driver to do extra works for each block
ciphering: mainly they are (a) set the key in AES controller (b)
generate the decryption key if in decrypt mode.

So is this interpretation right ? If so wouldn't it be appropriate to
introduce a mechanism to reserve this AES hardware for a special
purpose (filesystem encryptions) and thus make it as fast as possible
?

Thanks
-- 
Francis
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/