netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Define 128-bit memory-mapped I/O operations

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: <20120821.220010.1158630981089834558.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 21 Aug 2012 22:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	hpa@...or.com, bhutchings@...arflare.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86_64: Define 128-bit memory-mapped I/O operations

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:35:22 -0700

> My biggest reason to question this all is that I don't think it's
> worth it. Why would we ever care to do all this in the first place?
> There's no really sane use for it.

All the x86 crypto code hits this case all the time, easiest example
is doing a dm-crypt on a block device when an IPSEC packet arrives.

The crypto code has all of this special code and layering that is
there purely so it can fall back to the slow non-optimized version
of the crypto operation when it hits this can't-nest-fpu-saving
situation.
--
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