| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <38b2ab8a0704160137g1ef0713fl943c51ed9049212b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:37:01 +0200 From: "Francis Moreau" <francis.moro@...il.com> To: "Herbert Xu" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Cc: helge.hafting@...el.hist.no, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [CRYPTO] is it really optimized ? On 4/15/07, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 14, 2007 at 11:10:08PM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote: > > > > ok but do you think it's safe to assume that no others parts of the > > kernel will request "aes-foo" ? Remember that the main point is to > > optimize "aes-foo" ? > > What they request is up to the administrator. > But do you think it's safe to design aes driver that could work only with one kernel user and to rely on administrator config to verify this condition ? BTW, here are figures I got with 2 different versions of the driver when using tcrypt module. The second being the result with the optimized driver (no key reloading on each block): normal version: test 4 (128 bit key, 8192 byte blocks): 1 operation in 67991 cycles (8192 bytes) optimized version: test 4 (128 bit key, 8192 byte blocks): 1 operation in 51783 cycles (8192 bytes) So the gain is 16000 cycles which seems to worth the change, isn't it ? 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists