netdev - Re: Using the aesni generic gcm(aes) aead in atomic context

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171101092106.GI11292@secunet.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Nov 2017 10:21:07 +0100
From:   Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To:     Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@...lanox.com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "sd@...asysnail.net" <sd@...asysnail.net>,
        Boris Pismenny <borisp@...lanox.com>,
        "davejwatson@...com" <davejwatson@...com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: Using the aesni generic gcm(aes) aead in atomic context

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 09:41:24AM +0000, Ilya Lesokhin wrote:
> 
> Are you sure supporting ASYNC crypto for fallback is worth the trouble?

It is not just for fallback, I plan to support the IPsec GSO codepath
for software crypto too. In this case we should be able to handle all
algorithms, including the async ones.

> This path is going to be slower that the path were you do the crypto in advance, right?

If the cryptd is used, yes. At least that's what I messured for IPsec
forwarding. But I think this is because we enqueue requests much
faster that the cryptd dequeues them.