From: Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] hard drive encryption
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:18:21 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+czFiCcDMz7nMhfabGL6iRL4ecd+cxWdhu3ZeGSQeJf_MKM1Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F5F8CC3.7070402@binarywings.net>
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Florian Philipp <lists@binarywings.net> wrote:
> Am 13.03.2012 18:45, schrieb Frank Steinmetzger:
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 05:11:47PM +0100, Florian Philipp wrote:
>>
>>>> Since I am planning to encrypt only home/ under LVM control, what kind
>>>> of overhead should I expect?
>>>
>>> What do you mean with overhead? CPU utilization? In that case the
>>> overhead is minimal, especially when you run a 64-bit kernel with the
>>> optimized AES kernel module.
>>
>> Speaking of that...
>> I always wondered what the exact difference was between AES and AES i586. I
>> can gather myself that it's about optimisation for a specific architecture.
>> But which one would be best for my i686 Core 2 Duo?
>
> From what I can see in the kernel sources, there is a generic AES
> implementation using nothing but portable C code and then there is
> "aes-i586" assembler code with "aes_glue" C code.
> So I assume the i586
> version is better for you --- unless GCC suddenly got a lot better at
> optimizing code.
Since when, exactly? GCC isn't the best compiler at optimization, but
I fully expect current versions to produce better code for x86-64 than
hand-tuned i586. Wider registers, more registers, crypto acceleration
instructions and SIMD instructions are all very nice to have. I don't
know the specifics of AES, though, or what kind of crypto algorithm it
is, so it's entirely possible that one can't effectively parallelize
it except in some relatively unique circumstances.
--
:wq
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-13 18:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-11 15:38 [gentoo-user] hard drive encryption Valmor de Almeida
2012-03-11 18:29 ` Florian Philipp
2012-03-13 11:55 ` Valmor de Almeida
2012-03-13 16:11 ` Florian Philipp
2012-03-13 16:26 ` Michael Mol
2012-03-13 16:49 ` Florian Philipp
2012-03-13 16:54 ` Neil Bothwick
2012-03-13 16:54 ` Michael Mol
2012-03-13 17:45 ` Frank Steinmetzger
2012-03-13 18:06 ` Florian Philipp
2012-03-13 18:18 ` Michael Mol [this message]
2012-03-13 18:58 ` Florian Philipp
2012-03-13 19:13 ` Michael Mol
2012-03-13 19:30 ` Florian Philipp
2012-03-13 19:42 ` Michael Mol
2012-03-13 19:18 ` Florian Philipp
2012-03-13 21:05 ` Frank Steinmetzger
2012-03-13 19:07 ` Stroller
2012-03-13 19:38 ` Michael Mol
2012-03-13 20:15 ` Florian Philipp
2012-03-13 20:22 ` Florian Philipp
2012-03-13 20:02 ` Florian Philipp
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CA+czFiCcDMz7nMhfabGL6iRL4ecd+cxWdhu3ZeGSQeJf_MKM1Q@mail.gmail.com \
--to=mikemol@gmail.com \
--cc=gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox