From: Herbert Xu Subject: Re: comparison of the AF_ALG interface with the /dev/crypto Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 14:43:19 +0800 Message-ID: <20110901064319.GB27893@gondor.apana.org.au> References: <20110901021534.GA26330@gondor.apana.org.au> <4E5F257F.9060202@gnutls.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: cryptodev-linux-devel@gna.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos Return-path: Received: from helcar.apana.org.au ([209.40.204.226]:33585 "EHLO fornost.hengli.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753928Ab1IAGn3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2011 02:43:29 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E5F257F.9060202@gnutls.org> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 08:26:07AM +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > > Actually this is the reason of the ecb(cipher-null) comparison. To > emulate the case of a hardware offload device. I tried to make that > clear in the text, but may not be. If you see AF_ALG performs really bad > on that case. It performs better when a software or a padlock > implementation of AES is involved (which as you say it is a useless > use-case). It's meaningless because such devices operate at a rate much lower than the figures you give. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt