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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:13:47 +0100 From: James Courtier-Dutton <James@...erbug.co.uk> To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, dwalker@...sta.com, arjan@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com, steffen.klassert@...unet.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2]: Remote softirq invocation infrastructure. Herbert Xu wrote: > David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote: >> receive using multiple RX queues and MSI-X interrupts. It's >> also for things like IPSEC where the per-packet cpu usage >> is so huge (to do the crypto) that it makes sense to even >> split up the work to multiple cpus within the same flow. > > Unfortunately doing this with IPsec is going to be non-trivial > since we still want to maintain packet ordering inside IPsec > and you don't get the inner flow information until you decrypt > the packet. > Why do you have to preserve packet ordering? TCP/IP does not preserve packet ordering across the network. IPSEC uses a sliding window for anti-relay detection precisely because it has to be able to handle out-of-order packets. Sharing the sliding window between CPUs might be interesting! James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists