On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:

quoted text
>> This is an alternative design. There quite some reasons against that,
>> such as the auditing features. For me the main reason was  that there
>> was no way to make it as fast (zero-copy) as this design, for the
>> requirements we had (interface with existing crypto libraries through
>> pkcs11). Zero-copy is important since crypto operations might involve
>> large chunks of data.
> You mean using a shared memory segment would not be possible without changing
> the libpkcs11 interface?

Indeed. The pkcs11 backend would have to copy the data to the shared
segment, thus high-performance applications requiring zero-copy, would
avoid to use this interface. Moreover if more than one applications
are using the interface, the shared segment it is going to be a
bottleneck. Having multiple shared segments might help, but I don't
know how practical is something like that with the posix ipc.

regards,
Nikos
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/