[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081202092154.GG13998@secunet.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:21:54 +0100
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
klassert@...hematik.tu-chemnitz.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] IPsec parallelization
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 04:50:52PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
>
> > > This achieves exactly the same thing as your current patch-set
> > > plus:
> > >
> > > 1) The uesr no longer has to make a system-wide choice of whether
> > > to enable this, instead the control is per-SA through the usual
> > > algorithm selection mechanism which means that this no longer
> > > conflicts with async crypto;
> > >
> > > 2) There is no change to the xfrm code;
> > >
> > > 3) The same mechanism can benefit other crypto users such as
> > > disk encryption.
> >
> > The padata stuff is generic, so it can be used even for disk
> > encryption or for anything else that should run in parallel but
> > needs a certain order at a given point.
>
> What about the first issue?
>
Yes, that's a point. If it is in the network layer we probaply need this
system-wide choice because it would bring a useless overhead to
the sk_buff if this thing is not used. So this could be a plus for
putting it to the crypto layer if we don't need this system-wide choice
there.
--
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