Hi Ard, On vrijdag 11 december 2020 12:26:43 CET Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > Are you the same Ard Biesheuvel that 'Signed-off-by' the patch in: > > https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/commit/ > > 8332600d1188a6d88881fc835dfcd392a20f6bfc > > Presumably, yes. But I cannot access that link. https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/commit/8332600d1188a6d88881fc835dfcd392a20f6bfc Mail client wrapped the link previously. AFAIK it should be public for all. > > In that commit a bunch of crypto modules got enabled, but (explicitly) not > > CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES_ARM64_NEON_BLK. Do you recall why that happened? (I > > realize it's from 2014) > > There's an important difference between an 'oversight' and explicitly > > disabling a module and I'd like to have a clarification wrt that. > > This code was written before any hardware existed, and at the time, it > was not obvious whether it would perform well enough. > > Six years later, we know that this code works fine, and is faster (and > safer!) than any of the non-NEON alternatives. (On Raspberry Pi 3, the > non-NEON AES takes 31.5 cycles per byte, whereas the NEON code takes > around 22 cycles per byte) Thanks for the clarification :)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.