Re: base OpenSSL is much, much slower than the package

To: tech-userlevel%NetBSD.org@localhost
Subject: Re: base OpenSSL is much, much slower than the package
From: nia <nia%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 15:25:25 +0000

On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 01:13:44PM +0000, nia wrote:
> Right, yes, the CPUID stuff wasn't being defined when builing EVP which
> meant the dumb asm implementation was being used instead of HW/VP/BSAES.
> 
> That's fixed now. Everything else appears to still be slightly slower,
> but that's less critical than the AES implementation.

... and SHA2 is slower because we're patching OpenSSL to use the libc
implementation, which is pure C. Any reason for this?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: base OpenSSL is much, much slower than the package
  - From: Joerg Sonnenberger

References:
- base OpenSSL is much, much slower than the package
  - From: nia
- Re: base OpenSSL is much, much slower than the package
  - From: nia

Prev by Date: Re: base OpenSSL is much, much slower than the package
Next by Date: Re: base OpenSSL is much, much slower than the package
Previous by Thread: Re: base OpenSSL is much, much slower than the package
Next by Thread: Re: base OpenSSL is much, much slower than the package
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index