netdev - Re: [PATCH] crypto: aesni-intel

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: <20141112091216.GM6390@secunet.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Nov 2014 10:12:16 +0100
From:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC:	Ming Liu <ming.liu@...driver.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	<ying.xue@...driver.com>, <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: aesni-intel - avoid IPsec re-ordering

On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 04:51:48PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 09:41:38AM +0100, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> >
> > Can't we just use cryptd unconditionally to fix this reordering problem?
> 
> I think the idea is that most of the time cryptd isn't required
> so we want to stick with direct processing to lower latency.

Yes, I thought that. But is it really the case that doing it
asynchronous increases the latency? I tried this some time
ago and as far as I remember there was not too much difference
between the direct and the asynchronous case. Might depend
on the usecase of course.

> 
> I think the simplest fix would be to punt to cryptd as long as
> there are cryptd requests queued.

This would be the second option. We may need to adjust the
maximum cryptd queue lenght then, as the networking receive
softirq might enqueue a lot of packets before cryptd can
process them.

--
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