On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 12:21:50AM +0100, Torben Viets wrote:
>
> Why I can't see both in /proc/crypto and of course not use in int
> cryptsetup, till I make a /etc/init.d/udev restart ist ths a kernel bug,
> or a ubuntu bug?
The algorithm xts(aes) is an instantiation of the xts template. As s
Woot,
it works, in XTS and LRW mode thanks, but I have one last question (it
sounds like I'm columbo ;) )
Why I can't see both in /proc/crypto and of course not use in int
cryptsetup, till I make a /etc/init.d/udev restart ist ths a kernel bug,
or a ubuntu bug?
Thanks
Torben Viets
Herber
Torben Viets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> After rebuilding the kernel, I tried: cryptsetup -c aes-xts-plain -s 256
> luksFormat /dev/raid/test
>
> It does the same as before, dmesg says:
>
> general protection fault: [#1]
> Modules linked in: xt_TCPMSS xt_tcpmss iptable_mangle ipt_MASQU
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:35:29PM +0100, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
> * Herbert Xu | 2008-01-10 20:27:46 [+1100]:
>
> >On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>
> >> Then I don't think the patch should have been applied.
> >
> >I disagree. There isn't any evidence showing th
* Herbert Xu | 2008-01-10 20:27:46 [+1100]:
>On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>
>> Then I don't think the patch should have been applied.
>
>I disagree. There isn't any evidence showing that the inlined version
>is significantly faster either. In the absence of that,
Thanks for the reply,
the patch doesn't work witch the patch utility, so I did it manually, hope this
was rigth:
static void aes_crypt_copy(const u8 *in, u8 *out, u32 *key, struct cword *cword)
{
u8 tmp[AES_BLOCK_SIZE * 2]
__attribute__ ((__aligned__(PADLOCK_ALIGNMENT)));
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 08:27:46PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > Then I don't think the patch should have been applied.
>
> I disagree. There isn't any evidence showing that the inlined version
> is significantly faster either. In
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Then I don't think the patch should have been applied.
I disagree. There isn't any evidence showing that the inlined version
is significantly faster either. In the absence of that, the version
with the smaller size is preferable.
O
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:17:10AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > "Ilpo Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Bloat-o-meter shows rather high readings for cast6...
> >
> > Have you measured if the performance doesn't suffer from that
> > chan
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> "Ilpo Järvinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Bloat-o-meter shows rather high readings for cast6...
>
> Have you measured if the performance doesn't suffer from that
> change? Inner loops of ciphers tend to be quite performance
> sensitive and the inl
10 matches
Mail list logo
