netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 02/17] zinc: introduce minimal cryptography library

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: <63AAE78E-25D7-46E7-84AB-5D0DFD0F1BF2@amacapital.net>
Date:   Mon, 17 Sep 2018 09:18:32 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 02/17] zinc: introduce minimal cryptography library



> On Sep 17, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 6:14 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> Indeed.  What I'm saying is that you shouldn't refactor it this way
>> because it will be slow.  I agree it would be conceptually nice to be
>> able to blacklist a chacha20_x86_64 module to disable the asm, but I
>> think it would be very hard to get good performance.
> 
> I hadn't understood your nosimd=1 command line suggestion the first
> time through, but now I see what you were after. This would be really
> easy to add. And I can do it for v5 if you want. But I'm kind of loath
> to add too much stuff to the initial patchset. Do you think this is an
> important feature to have for it? Or should I leave it for later?

I think it’s fine for later. It’s potentially useful for benchmarking and debugging.