[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230613030216.GC883@sol.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 20:02:16 -0700
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc: palmer@...belt.com, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
aou@...s.berkeley.edu, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
davem@...emloft.net, conor.dooley@...rochip.com,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, christoph.muellner@...ll.eu,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@...ll.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] Implement GCM ghash using Zbc and Zbkb extensions
Hi Heiko,
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 11:04:38PM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@...ll.eu>
>
> This was originally part of my vector crypto series, but was part
> of a separate openssl merge request implementing GCM ghash as using
> non-vector extensions.
>
> As that pull-request
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/20078
> got merged recently into openssl, we could also check if this could
> go into the kernel as well and provide a base for further accelerated
> cryptographic support.
I'm still a bit skeptical of the usefulness of a standalone "ghash"
implementation, when in practice it will only be used as part of "gcm(aes)".
Directly implementing "gcm(aes)" (instead of relying on crypto/gcm.c to compose
"ghash" and "ctr(aes)") also allows some performance optimizations.
I asked about this on v4
(https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/ZCSG71bRuTzVutdm@gmail.com/),
but I didn't receive a response.
Any thoughts on this?
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists