Hi, 2011/5/16 <brill...@viatech.com.cn>: > Hi OpenSSL developers, > > We have found that Michal and Harald have worked on the SHA1/224/256 patch > and RNG patch for VIA, > > http://marc.info/?l=openssl-dev&m=122027889502874&w=2 > > http://marc.info/?l=openssl-dev&m=115243758508970&w=2 > > but unfortunately, these patches have been not merged into the OpenSSL > upstream now. In addition, we found some other people have pay attention to > VIA Padlock > > JM submitted a SHA1/224/256 patch > > http://marc.info/?l=openssl-dev&m=128786191732264&w=2
I have made enhanved versions of the SHA support including partial Nano support and proper optimizations for the earlier variant that does finalizing hashing only. They are both on OpenSSL RT. Latest versions of my patch set for 1.0-branch is at: http://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/aports.git/tree/main/openssl > Timo has propose some question about via-mont.pl > > http://marc.info/?l=openssl-dev&m=124945660509287&w=2 > > However, they never received any feedback on the list, so that I am confused > whether I should resume Michal and Harald'work and submit other patches for > VIA PadLock to OpenSSL. Therefore, I hope some OpenSSL developers can help me > on the following questions: > > 1. If I resume the Michal and Harald' work on SHA1/224/256 patch and RNG > patch, are you interested in it? Please take a look at my SHA patches, they should implement everything properly. RNG patches you might need to fix. > 2. The"via-mont.pl"seems no to be used, is there any taboo against it or some > bad history I are missing ? If yes, please tell me. I think the OpenSSL core code is missing montgomery multiplication abstraction. It seems to be compile time option only to pick which implementation is used. So to get the montgomery stuff enabled by default, you'd probably also need to implement abstraction support for it. > 3. If I want to submit a patch which implements modular multiplication and > modular exponentiation by calling VIA PadLock hardware instruction, should I > write it in a individual Perl script like "via-mont.pl", or wrap it in the > RSA/DSA method to be implemented in PadLock engine ? Or both are required? They work on different levels of the openssl library. Implementing via-mont.pl would be probably easier. Doing the implementation only in RSA/DSA method of the padlock module would enable the multiplication acceleration only for certain operations of the library. So I'd probably go with via-mont.pl and adding the required abstraction layer. > > > In any case, we are here to wait for your replies and we have time to do > anything that can make the work go on. So please talk to me. > > Thanks very much for your attention and help. Thanks, Timo ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
