From: Herbert Xu Subject: Re: PadLock XSHA Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:09:41 +1000 Message-ID: <20080831020941.GA25048@gondor.apana.org.au> References: <20080830084316.GA19371@gondor.apana.org.au> <48B918F4.9030604@logix.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linux Crypto Mailing List To: Michal Ludvig Return-path: Received: from rhun.apana.org.au ([64.62.148.172]:46471 "EHLO arnor.apana.org.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755005AbYHaCJp (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:09:45 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48B918F4.9030604@logix.cz> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 09:55:00PM +1200, Michal Ludvig wrote: > > IIRC The first versions of VIA PadLock required the input data to be > aligned on 16-bytes boundaries and more importantly they always > finalised the hash. Therefore we had to collect all data before hashing > them. Hmm, the current manual states that it does a bswap on the input and therefore alignment isn't required. There is no mention about older processors requiring 16-byte alignment. Do you know if the old alignment requirement is documented anywhere? Or even better do you have a processor that enforces this? Not requiring the alignment would allow IPsec at least to avoid having to copy the data. > AFAIK Recent versions of PadLock don't insist on finalising the hash and > don't insist on input data alignment either and this workaround isn't > needed anymore. I don't know if VIA still sells their motherboard models > with the older CPUs or not. Interesting. I couldn't find anything in the manual about not requireing finalisation. Do you know where I can find out more about this? Thanks, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt