From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: {twofish,aes}-{x86_64,i586} versus C implementations Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:16:18 +0200 Message-ID: <20070820101618.GE16680@bingen.suse.de> References: <200708200234.25620.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:55655 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752216AbXHTJWX (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2007 05:22:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org > Are you sure you get the C version when both are built-in > or loaded as modules? If so then we have a bug in the priority > code. The usual use case is: Somebody -- either admin or some command implicitely -- executes modprobe aes because some text file specifies the aes cipher. At least on my system that loads the C version when both are enabled. modprobe will not load multiple modules in this case. I don't think modprobe knows anything about these priorities. > We don't, but the system is meant to allow multiple > implementations to coexist and picking the best one > at run-time. But that would require teaching the module loading user space about all this first, right? Also if one implementation is always better than the other then I see little reason to ever have both. -Andi