| 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: <20110901021534.GA26330@gondor.apana.org.au> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 12:15:34 +1000 From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> To: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@...tls.org> Cc: cryptodev-linux-devel@....org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: comparison of the AF_ALG interface with the /dev/crypto Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@...tls.org> wrote: > > Given my benchmarks have no issues, it is not apparent to me why one > should use AF_ALG instead of cryptodev. I do not know though why AF_ALG > performs so poor. I'd speculate by blaming it on the usage of the socket > API and the number of system calls required. The target usage of AF_ALG is hardware offload devices that cannot be directly used in user-space, not software crypto on implementations such as AESNI/Padlock. Going through the kernel to use something like AESNI/Padlock or software crypto is insane. Given the intended target case, your numbers are pretty much meaningless as cryptodev's performance can be easily beaten by a pure user-space implementation. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- 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