netdev - RE: ipsec impact on performance

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: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D1CBE0ED7@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:56:45 +0000
From:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	'Sowmini Varadhan' <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>,
	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: ipsec impact on performance

From: Sowmini Varadhan
> Sent: 01 December 2015 18:37
...
> I was using esp-null merely to not have the crypto itself perturb
> the numbers (i.e., just focus on the s/w overhead for now), but here
> are the numbers for the stock linux kernel stack
>                 Gbps  peak cpu util
> esp-null         1.8   71%
> aes-gcm-c-256    1.6   79%
> aes-ccm-a-128    0.7   96%
> 
> That trend made me think that if we can get esp-null to be as close
> as possible to GSO/GRO, the rest will follow closely behind.

That's not how I read those figures.
They imply to me that there is a massive cost for the actual encryption
(particularly for aes-ccm-a-128) - so whatever you do to the esp-null
case won't help.

One way to get a view of the cost of the encryption (and copies)
is to do the operation twice.

	David

--
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