> On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 03:23:04PM +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Neil Horman
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > Btw, it doesn't have to be about performance per se. Does this
> > > > allow people to use keys without actually _seeing_ those keys?
> > > > Your exam
Noriaki TAKAMIYA wrote:
> I sent the collect URL. The following URL is correct.
>
> https://info.isl.ntt.co.jp/crypt/eng/camellia/source_s.html
Thank you,
I'm cc'ing linux-crypto and netdev so you don't get more questions about
this.
Regards,
Dag Arne Osvik
-
Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
> Joachim Fritschi wrote:
>> On Sunday 04 June 2006 23:01, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
>>> Andi Kleen wrote:
>>>> On Sunday 04 June 2006 15:16, Joachim Fritschi wrote:
>>>>> This patch adds the twofish x86_64 assembler routine.
>&g
Joachim Fritschi wrote:
> On Sunday 04 June 2006 23:01, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
>> Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> On Sunday 04 June 2006 15:16, Joachim Fritschi wrote:
>>>> This patch adds the twofish x86_64 assembler routine.
>>>>
>>>> +/* Defining a fe
Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sunday 04 June 2006 15:16, Joachim Fritschi wrote:
>> This patch adds the twofish x86_64 assembler routine.
>> +/* Defining a few register aliases for better reading */
>
> Maybe you can read it now better, but for everybody else it is extremly
> confusing. It would be bet
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 10:00:09PM +0100, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
Using the best average encryption time per block from tcrypt's speed
tests gave these numbers:
ECB on Intel288.5
ECB on AMD 286.1
CBC on Intel510.4
CBC on AMD 334.2
Sorry for the conf
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 03:32:33PM +0100, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
Cool. How does this compare with the existing x86-64 AES implementation?
Using the best average encryption time per block from tcrypt's speed
tests gave these numbers:
ECB on Intel288.5
ECB o
Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 08:57:48AM +0100, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
I've attached an implementation of AES optimized for 64-bit Pentium
4E. The round function achieves 3 ?ops per cycle, so even with
function call overhead its performance is quite
Herbert Xu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 08:57:48AM +0100, Dag Arne Osvik wrote:
I've attached an implementation of AES optimized for 64-bit Pentium 4E.
The round function achieves 3 ?ops per cycle, so even with function
call overhead its performance is quite good, with best average tim
ake it
ready for inclusion in the Linux kernel later. In the meantime,
comments are welcome.
I'm still working on a version optimized for AMD - will get back to that
later, as well as some 32-bit versions I'll soon provide.
Regards,
Dag Arne Osvik
/*
* AES optimized for Inte
10 matches
Mail list logo
