tech-crypto archive

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

Re: VIA ACE patch



On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
I certainly don't think so.  I work with a lot of cryptographic hardware,
and there are basically two kinds: hardware that acts like separate
peripheral devices, that interfaces across the bus, needs a hardware
driver, etc; and hardware that just basically is special-purpose
instructions on the CPU you already have.  By your reasoning, we should
have separate "providers" for every piece of code in the system that
has multiple implementations tuned for specific processors in an
arch/ subdirectory.

Still, ACE is especially efficient because you can point it at buffers, let it do the work for n blocks and handle the IVs. So, from the crypto/opencrypto view a fast implementation would be at the level of swcr_encdec() in cryptosoft.c, which is called by swcr_process. So, not making a separate "provider" for opencrypto would be kinda like putting two (or more) providers in cryptosoft. Each one with its own potential kludges.

BTW, thanks for the good food for thought :).

-- Daniel



Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index