On Thursday 11 September 2008 15:16:48 Andy Polyakov wrote: > > BTW, my memory is vague here, is this Padlock block only able to do > > one-shot hashing? > > Yes, but a technique bypassing this limitation was proposed and proven > to work (as per end of SHA1 thread mentioned earlier). Technique > involved crashing of hashing instruction into non-accessible page. And > that was what I wanted to pursue, but never got time to. Which is why > there was no real follow-up:-( For reference, the plan was to setup > intermediate buffer followed by non-accessible page upon engine setup, > i.e. once, and then serialize access to it with thread synchronizing > primitives. I reckon that serializing threads is OK, because system is > more likely to starve for data than for hashing compute power (1Gbps NIC > vs. ~2Gbps hashing rate). A.
Strangely enough, I've got uncommitted code to add support for thread-local-storage ... :-) (It's one of the components in the work I'm doing for async-crypto.) So if you take the approach you suggesting above, it should be relatively simple to generalise it later, to avoid locking/serialisation. Cheers, Geoff -- Un terrien, c'est un singe avec des clefs de char... ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
