netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] IPsec parallelization

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: <87hc5o5eh5.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date:	Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:20:22 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	klassert@...hematik.tu-chemnitz.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] IPsec parallelization

Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> writes:
>
> I still think that you're much better off doing this in the
> crypto layer.  As it stands the only reason why this is attractive
> is because crypto is slow.
>
> Pretty soon processors will start providing crypto support natively
> so this will no longer be the case. 

I'm not sure that's a useful argument.  When cryptography is not
CPU bound anymore it will be memory bandwidth bound. And in this case
you can still get a win out of parallelization if you parallelize
over multiple sockets with own memory controller or own FSB
because that will give you more bandwidth.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com
--
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