Re: {twofish,aes}-{x86_64,i586} versus C implementations

[Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>]

On Thursday 04 October 2007 10:48, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:35:12AM +0200, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
> > Two last questions:
> > - What about the i386 assembly vs generic implementation? Do you prefer
> >   the patch that I have send earlier (choose the assembly by default
> >   making the generic optional) or do you want both of them loaded at
> >   the same time.
>
> I'd prefer both to be built by default so that if something
> does go wrong we can ask people to check by using aes-generic.

Is that really needed? How often did you see a broken AES implementation? 
They tend to be well tested and high quality after all and I haven't ever seen 
any evidence that the assembler functions are any less stable than C.
In fact they're probably more stable because they don't have to worry
about being miscompiled.

I also think it is a bad idea to install the generic function by default -- it 
increases the risk the user ends up with a unnecessary slow implementation

-Andi