02 Sep, 2005
1 commit
-
The XTEA implementation was incorrect due to a misinterpretation of
operator precedence. Because of the wide-spread nature of this
error, the erroneous implementation will be kept, albeit under the
new name of XETA.Signed-off-by: Aaron Grothe
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller
07 Jul, 2005
1 commit
-
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 This unpublished implementation does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
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller
01 May, 2005
1 commit
-
We want to make possible, for the user, to enable the i586 AES implementation.
This requires a restructure.- Add a CONFIG_UML_X86 to notify that we are building a UML for i386.
- Rename CONFIG_64_BIT to CONFIG_64BIT as is used for all other archs
- Tell crypto/Kconfig that UML_X86 is as good as X86
- Tell it that it must exclude not X86_64 but 64BIT, which will give the
same results.- Tell kbuild to descend down into arch/i386/crypto/ to build what's needed.
Signed-off-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds
17 Apr, 2005
1 commit
-
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.Let it rip!
