Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:42:19 -0500 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH CIFS] use CryptoAPI MD4/MD5 |
| |
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 01:26:50AM +0200, Erlend Aasland wrote: > On 10/01/03 14:55, Matt Mackall wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 03:30:39PM +0200, Erlend Aasland wrote: > > > static int cifs_calculate_signature(const struct smb_hdr * cifs_pdu, const char * key, char * signature) > > [...] > > Eek. How often does this get called? > It is (normally) called twice in SendReceive(). SendReceive() is called > very often in cifs. After a quick look at cifs, it seems that most of > these calls are protected with a per connection-lock (correct me if I'm > wrong). But since two connections can call SendReceive() at the same > time, we have to protect the tfm with locks. Correct?
Correct. But this lock is going to be a huge bottleneck.
> Would a better solution be to allocate one tfm per connection, thus > no need to protect the tfm with a dedicated lock, right?
Per connection sounds like a much better answer, assuming you can guarantee that SendReceive() never gets called simultaneously on the same connection.
> [Or is converting cifs to the cryptoapi is waste of time? (I hope not :-) ]
No, it's generally a good idea, but the allocation of tfms means that conversion isn't necessarily straightforward.
-- Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : of or relating to the moon - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |