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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20081202093911.GH13998@secunet.com>
Date:	Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:39:11 +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 04:53:25PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 09:44:19AM +0100, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> 
> The padata stuff might be great, but does that mean that we really
> want to reimplement exactly the same logic in two different places
> when we can do it just once in the crypto layer (which could also
> use padata as you suggested)?
> 

I would not mind to move the padata hooks to the crypto layer.

But what's with the interface? Should it be moved to the crypto
layer too? I'm not sure, but perhaps it could find users beyond
the crypto layer.

--
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