[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [CRYPTO] is it really optimized ?
    On 4/17/07, Roland Dreier <> wrote:
    > > > It seems trivial to keep the last key you were given and do a quick
    > > > memcmp in your setkey method to see if it's different from the last
    > > > key you pushed to hardware, and set a flag if it is. Then only do
    > > > your set_key() if you have a new key to pass to hardware.
    > > >
    > > > I'm assuming the expense is in the aes_write() calls, and you could
    > > > avoid them if you know you're not writing something new.
    > > that's a wrong assumption. aes_write()/aes_read() are both used to
    > > access to the controller and are slow (no cache involved).
    > Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that the hardware access is what is
    > slow, and that anything you do on the CPU is relatively cheap compared
    > to that.
    > So my suggestion is just to keep a cache (in CPU memory) of what you
    > have already loaded into the HW, and before reloading the HW just
    > check the cache and don't do the actual HW access if you're not going
    > to change the HW contents. So you avoid any extra aes_write and
    > aes_read calls in the cache hit case.
    > This would have the advantage of making anything that does lots of
    > bulk encryption fast without special casing ecryptfs.

    I'm not sure how "memcmp(key, cache, KEY_SIZE)" would impact AES
    performance. I need to give it a test but can't today. I'll do
    tomorrow and give you back the result.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-04-19 10:13    [W:0.021 / U:10.548 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site