Re: [RFC] AES instead of SHA1 for /dev/urandom

2013-01-01 Thread Pavel Machek
On Wed 2012-12-12 20:10:16, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:58:16 +0100 Ondřej Bílka wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:08:26PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 03:03:54 +0100 Ondřej Bílka wrote: > > > > > > > I consider to speed-up /dev/urandom on recent intel p

Re: [RFC] AES instead of SHA1 for /dev/urandom

2012-12-12 Thread NeilBrown
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:58:16 +0100 Ondřej Bílka wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:08:26PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 03:03:54 +0100 Ondřej Bílka wrote: > > > > > I consider to speed-up /dev/urandom on recent intel processors by > > > using hardware aes. Same for accelerat

Re: [RFC] AES instead of SHA1 for /dev/urandom

2012-12-12 Thread Ondřej Bílka
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:08:26PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 03:03:54 +0100 Ondřej Bílka wrote: > > > I consider to speed-up /dev/urandom on recent intel processors by > > using hardware aes. Same for accelerated aes crypto. > > > > Would you accept a patch if I wrote it? >

Re: [RFC] AES instead of SHA1 for /dev/urandom

2012-12-11 Thread NeilBrown
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 03:03:54 +0100 Ondřej Bílka wrote: > I consider to speed-up /dev/urandom on recent intel processors by > using hardware aes. Same for accelerated aes crypto. > > Would you accept a patch if I wrote it? Have you read https://lwn.net/Articles/525459 ? In particular the para