From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262671AbTJAXmj (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:42:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263164AbTJAXmj (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:42:39 -0400 Received: from waste.org ([209.173.204.2]:16307 "EHLO waste.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262671AbTJAXmi (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:42:38 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 18:42:19 -0500 From: Matt Mackall To: Erlend Aasland Cc: Steve French , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Samba Technical Mailing List , James Morris Subject: Re: [PATCH CIFS] use CryptoAPI MD4/MD5 Message-ID: <20031001234219.GM1897@waste.org> References: <20030902203041.GA25675@johanna5.ux.his.no> <20031001133039.GA32610@badne3.ux.his.no> <20031001195522.GK1897@waste.org> <20031001232650.GB18028@badne3.ux.his.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031001232650.GB18028@badne3.ux.his.no> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 01:26:50AM +0200, Erlend Aasland wrote: > On 10/01/03 14:55, Matt Mackall wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 03:30:39PM +0200, Erlend Aasland wrote: > > > static int cifs_calculate_signature(const struct smb_hdr * cifs_pdu, const char * key, char * signature) > > [...] > > Eek. How often does this get called? > It is (normally) called twice in SendReceive(). SendReceive() is called > very often in cifs. After a quick look at cifs, it seems that most of > these calls are protected with a per connection-lock (correct me if I'm > wrong). But since two connections can call SendReceive() at the same > time, we have to protect the tfm with locks. Correct? Correct. But this lock is going to be a huge bottleneck. > Would a better solution be to allocate one tfm per connection, thus > no need to protect the tfm with a dedicated lock, right? Per connection sounds like a much better answer, assuming you can guarantee that SendReceive() never gets called simultaneously on the same connection. > [Or is converting cifs to the cryptoapi is waste of time? (I hope not :-) ] No, it's generally a good idea, but the allocation of tfms means that conversion isn't necessarily straightforward. -- Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : of or relating to the moon