From: Jeffrey Walton Subject: Re: AES-NI: slower than aes-generic? Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 16:40:37 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1567400.ZMFoPuCv2K@tauon.atsec.com> <4972668.UQ1QRNriDb@positron.chronox.de> <20160527021429.GA21331@thunk.org> Reply-To: noloader@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: "Theodore Ts'o" Return-path: Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170]:34611 "EHLO mail-io0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756507AbcE0Uki (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 May 2016 16:40:38 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 190so79061359iow.1 for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 13:40:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160527021429.GA21331@thunk.org> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > If we implement something which happens to result in a 2 minute stall > in boot times, the danger is that a clueless engineer at Sony, or LGE, > or Motorola, or BMW, or Toyota, etc, will "fix" the problem without > telling anyone about what they did, and we might not notice right away > that the fix was in fact catastrophically bad. This is an non-trivial threat. +1 for recognizing it. I know of one VM hypervisor used in US Financial that was effectively doing "One thing you should not do is the following..." from http://lwn.net/Articles/525459/. Jeff