On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:06:51 +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:19 PM Pascal Van Leeuwen wrote: > > Actually, that assumption is factually wrong. I don't know if anything > > is *publicly* available, but I can assure you the silicon is running in > > labs already. And something will be publicly available early next year > > at the latest. Which could nicely coincide with having Wireguard support > > in the kernel (which I would also like to see happen BTW) ... > > > > Not "at some point". It will. Very soon. Maybe not in consumer or server > > CPUs, but definitely in the embedded (networking) space. > > And it *will* be much faster than the embedded CPU next to it, so it will > > be worth using it for something like bulk packet encryption. > > Super! I was wondering if you could speak a bit more about the > interface. My biggest questions surround latency. Will it be > synchronous or asynchronous? If the latter, why? What will its > latencies be? How deep will its buffers be? The reason I ask is that a > lot of crypto acceleration hardware of the past has been fast and > having very deep buffers, but at great expense of latency. In the > networking context, keeping latency low is pretty important. FWIW are you familiar with existing kTLS, and IPsec offloads in the networking stack? They offload the crypto into the NIC, inline, which helps with the latency, and processing overhead. There are also NIC silicon which can do some ChaCha/Poly, although I'm not familiar enough with WireGuard to know if offload to existing silicon will be possible.
