From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:54:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:54:29 -0500 Received: from blackbird.intercode.com.au ([203.32.101.10]:30472 "EHLO blackbird.intercode.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:54:28 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:00:43 +1100 (EST) From: James Morris To: Alan Cox cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: What's left over. In-Reply-To: <1036092043.8575.116.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 31 Oct 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > Chris is write that crypto api is misdesigned if we want to use hardware > cryptocards Hardware support was not an initial goal, as the requirements are not yet fully known. >>From Documentation/crypto/api-intro.txt: An asynchronous scheduling interface is in planning but not yet implemented, as we need to further analyze the requirements of all of the possible hardware scenarios (e.g. IPsec NIC offload). Hardware accelerators are generally a known issue, with already proven solutions (e.g. the OpenBSD crypto queue). We don't know much about IPSec NIC offload yet, however. - James -- James Morris