[PATCH] Use Intel AES instruction set if it exists.

Jeremy Allison jra at samba.org
Fri Sep 1 15:48:26 UTC 2017

On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 10:06:46PM +1200, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> Sure.  I don't know how others feel about a mandatory dependency, but I
> think we should work to get out of the crypto business, even if it

Great ! What is the timeframe for your Catalyst Team to
create the libnettle code we need ?

We've been sitting on a severe performance deficiency
for many years now (the Intel crypto code was added
to the Linux kernel in *2008*) and we have done
*NOTHING* to fix this in this time.

Netgear has offered us a solution (needed a little
work, but I was able to fix this up in a couple of
days) that fixes this issue right now.

I don't think it's sensible to ignore working code
in this way.

I'm happy to move us to libnettle, but how much
work is this going to take ? Who is committing
to do this work ? What timeframe ?

Continuing to ignore performance issues for the sake of
"jam tomorrow" is not wise IMHO.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list