linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] poly1305: generic C can be faster on chips with slow unaligned access

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

Message-ID: <20161102210802.GA26741@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 3 Nov 2016 05:08:02 +0800
From:   Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin Willi <martin@...ongswan.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] poly1305: generic C can be faster on chips with slow
 unaligned access

On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:06:39PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > Can you give some numbers please? What about other architectures
> > that your patch impacts?
> 
> Per [1], the patch gives a 181% speed up on MIPS32r2.
> 
> [1] https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2016-September/000398.html

What about architectures? In particular, what if we just use your
new code for all architectures.  How much would we lose?

Thanks,
-- 
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