On 4/17/07, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 10:37:01AM +0200, Francis Moreau wrote:
>
> BTW, here are figures I got with 2 different versions of the driver
> when using tcrypt module. The second being the result with the
> optimized driver (no key reloading on each b
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:01:51PM +0200, Francis Moreau ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On 4/17/07, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Yep. We don't need such a flag anyway. All we need is a way to tweak
> >the priority and Bob's your uncle.
> >
>
> Could you elaborate please, I don't s
On 4/17/07, Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, I tried to cook up something very simple. Since I don't know this
> code, please be indulgent when reading the following patch ;)
Which means that after one has loaded ecryptfs module it can not use
ipsec and dm-crypt if there is only
On 4/17/07, Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If there are another users, then flag should not be set.
depends if there's a 'generic' algo that can be used at the same time.
Admin should know that.
If there are no another users, your code already has exclusive access.
sorry I don
On 4/17/07, Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:01:51PM +0200, Francis Moreau ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On 4/17/07, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Yep. We don't need such a flag anyway. All we need is a way to tweak
> >the priority and Bob's
> Again, my code is faster only because I skip the key loading in
> "cia_encrypt" method. Actually the gain is bigger in decryption mode
> than in encryption one because I also generate the decryption key for
> each block.
I wonder if there's some way you can cache the last caller and reloa
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 05:34:12PM +0200, Francis Moreau ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> >Preventing anyone from using the module is incorrect.
> >How will you handle the case when you have only one algo registered and
> >it will be exclusively used by ecryptfs?
> >
>
> As I tried to explain, in tha
> > I wonder if there's some way you can cache the last caller and reload
> > the key lazily (only when it changes).
>
> yes something that allows crypto drivers to detect if the key has
> changed would be good.
It seems trivial to keep the last key you were given and do a quick
memcmp in yo
Francis Moreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > normal version:
>> > test 4 (128 bit key, 8192 byte blocks): 1 operation in 67991 cycles (8192
>> > bytes)
>> >
>> > optimized version:
>> > test 4 (128 bit key, 8192 byte blocks): 1 operation in 51783 cycles (8192
>> > bytes)
>> >
>> > So the gain i
Francis Moreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/17/07, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, I was referring to your AES module :)
>
> Well I don't if I can do that unfortunately.
What's the problem?
> Actually there's nothing really interesting in this code, only key or
> acc l
On 4/17/07, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yep. We don't need such a flag anyway. All we need is a way to tweak
the priority and Bob's your uncle.
Could you elaborate please, I don't see how you prevent others users
to use this module with priority.
Priority is a stuff that tells yo
On 4/17/07, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, I was referring to your AES module :)
Well I don't if I can do that unfortunately.
Actually there's nothing really interesting in this code, only key or
acc loadings and that's it.
What do you want to see exactly ?
Thanks
--
Franc
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 02:36:09PM +0200, Francis Moreau ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> >> BTW, here are figures I got with 2 different versions of the driver
> >> when using tcrypt module. The second being the result with the
> >> optimized driver (no key reloading on each block):
> >>
> >> normal
On 4/17/07, Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, my code is faster only because I skip the key loading in
> "cia_encrypt" method. Actually the gain is bigger in decryption mode
> than in encryption one because I also generate the decryption key for
> each block.
I wonder if ther
Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> OK, I tried to cook up something very simple. Since I don't know this
>> code, please be indulgent when reading the following patch ;)
>
> Which means that after one has loaded ecryptfs module it can not use
> ipsec and dm-crypt if there is only one
On 4/17/07, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Francis Moreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/17/07, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, I was referring to your AES module :)
>
> Well I don't if I can do that unfortunately.
What's the problem?
Always the same problem. S
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 06:18:42PM +0200, Francis Moreau ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> >If there are no another users, your code already has exclusive access.
>
> sorry I don't understand that.
Since there are no users except your module, you do have exclusive
access already, i.e. you can stop ke
On 4/17/07, Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I wonder if there's some way you can cache the last caller and reload
> > the key lazily (only when it changes).
>
> yes something that allows crypto drivers to detect if the key has
> changed would be good.
It seems trivial to keep t
> > 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 assu
From: John Anthony Kazos Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Convert the subdirectory "crypto" to UTF-8. The files changed are
and .
Signed-off-by: John Anthony Kazos Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
I can't get my mail client to send in ISO-8859-1 instead of UTF-8, so the
actual patch is attached in octet-s
20 matches
Mail list logo
