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  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]
Date:   Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:15:29 +0800
From:   Tony W Wang-oc <>
To:     Eric Biggers <>
CC:     <>, <>,
        <>, <>, <>,
        <>, <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: x86/crc32c-intel - Don't match some Zhaoxin CPUs

On 15/12/2020 04:41, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 10:28:19AM +0800, Tony W Wang-oc wrote:
>> On 12/12/2020 01:43, Eric Biggers wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 07:29:04PM +0800, Tony W Wang-oc wrote:
>>>> The driver crc32c-intel match CPUs supporting X86_FEATURE_XMM4_2.
>>>> On platforms with Zhaoxin CPUs supporting this X86 feature, When
>>>> crc32c-intel and crc32c-generic are both registered, system will
>>>> use crc32c-intel because its .cra_priority is greater than
>>>> crc32c-generic. This case expect to use crc32c-generic driver for
>>>> some Zhaoxin CPUs to get performance gain, So remove these Zhaoxin
>>>> CPUs support from crc32c-intel.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tony W Wang-oc <>
>>> Does this mean that the performance of the crc32c instruction on those CPUs is
>>> actually slower than a regular C implementation?  That's very weird.
>> From the lmbench3 Create and Delete file test on those chips, I think yes.
> Did you try measuring the performance of the hashing itself, and not some
> higher-level filesystem operations?

Yes. Was testing on these Zhaoxin CPUs, the result is that with the same
input value the generic C implementation takes fewer time than the
crc32c instruction implementation.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists