netdev - Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v2 0/6] Extend XFRM core to allow full offload configuration

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: <20220822171706.3287ee18@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 17:17:06 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
Cc:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Raed Salem <raeds@...dia.com>,
        ipsec-devel <devel@...ux-ipsec.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v2 0/6] Extend XFRM core to allow full offload
 configuration

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 14:27:16 -0700 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
> >My questions about performance were more about where does
> >the performance loss originate. Is it because of loss of GRO?  
> 
> Performance loss between full and baseline ? it's hardly measurable .. 
> less than 3% in the worst case.

The loss for crypto only vs baseline is what I meant. Obviously if we
offload everything the CPU perf may look great but we're giving up
flexibility and ability to fix problems in SW.