Re: [RFC] DRBG: which shall be default?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Am Mittwoch, 8. Juni 2016, 17:15:00 schrieb Herbert Xu:

Hi Herbert, Tadeusz,

> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 11:07:42AM +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote:
> > No, it does not:
> > 
> > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> 
> Well there is no fundamental reason why we can't do it on 32-bit.
> Even if we just did the counter increment in C this would still
> beat ctr(aes-aesni) by many orders of magnitude.

I would think that the performance boost on 64 bit should warrant an official 
patch set.
> 
> So if you really care about the performance on x86-32 then perhaps
> you should send a patch to implement ctr-aes-aesni for it.

Maybe Intel can shed some light on this:

Tadeusz, can you please help me understand why the ctr-aes-aesni is only 
defined for 64 bit?

Thanks
Stephan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel]     [Gnu Classpath]     [Gnu Crypto]     [DM Crypt]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]

  Powered by Linux