[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9rr7A-ffz81N5jUzjg2k1UdM=-QLfcSDH_aOwrC-OFDpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 21:43:40 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: George Spelvin <linux@...encehorizons.net>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
"Daniel J . Bernstein" <djb@...yp.to>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] siphash: add cryptographically secure PRF
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 9:41 PM, George Spelvin
<linux@...encehorizons.net> wrote:
> What are you testing on? And what input size? And does "33% improvement"
> mean 4/3 the rate and 3/4 the time? Or 2/3 the time and 3/2 the rate?
How that I've published my hsiphash implementation to my tree, it
should be possible to conduct the tests back to back with nearly
identical implementation strategies, to remove a potential source of
error.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists