OpenSDV
/
original_kernel
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
original_kernel/arch/x86_64/crypto/Makefile

13 lines
267 B
Makefile
Raw Normal View History

[CRYPTO] Add x86_64 asm AES Implementation: =============== The encrypt/decrypt code is based on an x86 implementation I did a while ago which I never published. This unpublished implementation does include an assembler based key schedule and precomputed tables. For simplicity and best acceptance, however, I took Gladman's in-kernel code for table generation and key schedule for the kernel port of my assembler code and modified this code to produce the key schedule as required by my assembler implementation. File locations and Kconfig are kept similar to the i586 AES assembler implementation. It may seem a little bit strange to use 32 bit I/O and registers in the assembler implementation but this gives the best code size. My implementation takes one instruction more per round compared to Gladman's x86 assembler but it doesn't require any stack for local variables or saved registers and it is less serialized than Gladman's code. Note that all comparisons to Gladman's code were done after my code was implemented. I did only use FIPS PUB 197 for the implementation so my implementation is independent work. If anybody has a better assembler solution for x86_64 I'll be pleased to have my code replaced with the better solution. Testing: ======== The implementation passes the in-kernel crypto testing module and I'm running it without any problems on my laptop where it is mainly used for dm-crypt. Microbenchmark: =============== The microbenchmark was done in userspace with similar compile flags as used during kernel compile. Encrypt/decrypt is about 35% faster than the generic C implementation. As the generic C as well as my assembler implementation are both table I don't really expect that there is much room for further improvements though I'll be glad to be corrected here. The key schedule is about 5% slower than the generic C implementation. This is due to the fact that some more work has to be done in the key schedule routine to fit the schedule to the assembler implementation. Code Size: ========== Encrypt and decrypt are together about 2.1 Kbytes smaller than the generic C implementation which is important with regard to L1 cache usage. The key schedule routine is about 100 bytes larger than the generic C implementation. Data Size: ========== There's no difference in data size requirements between the assembler implementation and the generic C implementation. License: ======== Gladmans's code is dual BSD/GPL whereas my assembler code is GPLv2 only (I'm not going to change the license for my code). So I had to change the module license for the x86_64 aes module from 'Dual BSD/GPL' to 'GPL' to reflect the most restrictive license within the module. Signed-off-by: Andreas Steinmetz <ast@domdv.de> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2005-07-07 04:55:00 +08:00
#
# x86_64/crypto/Makefile
#
# Arch-specific CryptoAPI modules.
#
obj-$(CONFIG_CRYPTO_AES_X86_64) += aes-x86_64.o
[CRYPTO] twofish: x86-64 assembly version The patch passed the trycpt tests and automated filesystem tests. This rewrite resulted in some nice perfomance increase over my last patch. Short summary of the tcrypt benchmarks: Twofish Assembler vs. Twofish C (256bit 8kb block CBC) encrypt: -27% Cycles decrypt: -23% Cycles Twofish Assembler vs. AES Assembler (128bit 8kb block CBC) encrypt: +18% Cycles decrypt: +15% Cycles Twofish Assembler vs. AES Assembler (256bit 8kb block CBC) encrypt: -9% Cycles decrypt: -8% Cycles Full Output: http://homepages.tu-darmstadt.de/~fritschi/twofish/tcrypt-speed-twofish-c-x86_64.txt http://homepages.tu-darmstadt.de/~fritschi/twofish/tcrypt-speed-twofish-asm-x86_64.txt http://homepages.tu-darmstadt.de/~fritschi/twofish/tcrypt-speed-aes-asm-x86_64.txt Here is another bonnie++ benchmark with encrypted filesystems. Most runs maxed out the hd. It should give some idea what the module can do for encrypted filesystem performance even though you can't see the full numbers. http://homepages.tu-darmstadt.de/~fritschi/twofish/output_20060610_130806_x86_64.html Signed-off-by: Joachim Fritschi <jfritschi@freenet.de> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
2006-06-20 19:12:02 +08:00
obj-$(CONFIG_CRYPTO_TWOFISH_X86_64) += twofish-x86_64.o
[CRYPTO] Add x86_64 asm AES Implementation: =============== The encrypt/decrypt code is based on an x86 implementation I did a while ago which I never published. This unpublished implementation does include an assembler based key schedule and precomputed tables. For simplicity and best acceptance, however, I took Gladman's in-kernel code for table generation and key schedule for the kernel port of my assembler code and modified this code to produce the key schedule as required by my assembler implementation. File locations and Kconfig are kept similar to the i586 AES assembler implementation. It may seem a little bit strange to use 32 bit I/O and registers in the assembler implementation but this gives the best code size. My implementation takes one instruction more per round compared to Gladman's x86 assembler but it doesn't require any stack for local variables or saved registers and it is less serialized than Gladman's code. Note that all comparisons to Gladman's code were done after my code was implemented. I did only use FIPS PUB 197 for the implementation so my implementation is independent work. If anybody has a better assembler solution for x86_64 I'll be pleased to have my code replaced with the better solution. Testing: ======== The implementation passes the in-kernel crypto testing module and I'm running it without any problems on my laptop where it is mainly used for dm-crypt. Microbenchmark: =============== The microbenchmark was done in userspace with similar compile flags as used during kernel compile. Encrypt/decrypt is about 35% faster than the generic C implementation. As the generic C as well as my assembler implementation are both table I don't really expect that there is much room for further improvements though I'll be glad to be corrected here. The key schedule is about 5% slower than the generic C implementation. This is due to the fact that some more work has to be done in the key schedule routine to fit the schedule to the assembler implementation. Code Size: ========== Encrypt and decrypt are together about 2.1 Kbytes smaller than the generic C implementation which is important with regard to L1 cache usage. The key schedule routine is about 100 bytes larger than the generic C implementation. Data Size: ========== There's no difference in data size requirements between the assembler implementation and the generic C implementation. License: ======== Gladmans's code is dual BSD/GPL whereas my assembler code is GPLv2 only (I'm not going to change the license for my code). So I had to change the module license for the x86_64 aes module from 'Dual BSD/GPL' to 'GPL' to reflect the most restrictive license within the module. Signed-off-by: Andreas Steinmetz <ast@domdv.de> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
2005-07-07 04:55:00 +08:00
aes-x86_64-y := aes-x86_64-asm.o aes.o
[CRYPTO] twofish: x86-64 assembly version The patch passed the trycpt tests and automated filesystem tests. This rewrite resulted in some nice perfomance increase over my last patch. Short summary of the tcrypt benchmarks: Twofish Assembler vs. Twofish C (256bit 8kb block CBC) encrypt: -27% Cycles decrypt: -23% Cycles Twofish Assembler vs. AES Assembler (128bit 8kb block CBC) encrypt: +18% Cycles decrypt: +15% Cycles Twofish Assembler vs. AES Assembler (256bit 8kb block CBC) encrypt: -9% Cycles decrypt: -8% Cycles Full Output: http://homepages.tu-darmstadt.de/~fritschi/twofish/tcrypt-speed-twofish-c-x86_64.txt http://homepages.tu-darmstadt.de/~fritschi/twofish/tcrypt-speed-twofish-asm-x86_64.txt http://homepages.tu-darmstadt.de/~fritschi/twofish/tcrypt-speed-aes-asm-x86_64.txt Here is another bonnie++ benchmark with encrypted filesystems. Most runs maxed out the hd. It should give some idea what the module can do for encrypted filesystem performance even though you can't see the full numbers. http://homepages.tu-darmstadt.de/~fritschi/twofish/output_20060610_130806_x86_64.html Signed-off-by: Joachim Fritschi <jfritschi@freenet.de> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
2006-06-20 19:12:02 +08:00
twofish-x86_64-y := twofish-x86_64-asm.o twofish.o