On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:45:43AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > As for your sha256_finup "optimization", it's an interesting idea, but > unfortunately it slightly slows down the common case which is count % 64 < 56, > due to the unnecessary copy to the stack and the following zeroization. In > the > uncommon case where count % 64 >= 56 you do get to pass nblocks=2 to > sha256_blocks_*(), but ultimately SHA-256 is serialized block-by-block anyway, > so it ends up being only slightly faster in that case, which again is the > uncommon case. So while it's an interesting idea, it doesn't seem to actually > be better. And the fact that that patch is also being used to submit > unrelated, > more dubious changes isn't very helpful, of course.
I'm more than willing to change sha256_finup if you can prove it with real numbers that it is worse than the single-block version. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herb...@gondor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
