Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos n.mavrogiannopoulos@gmail.com writes:
It is a bit unfair to compare umac with plain hashes.
For large messages I think it is fair; the O(n) work is the same for hash and hmac-hash; hmac only adds O(1) work of hashing some short constant-size strings. And the benchmark program only tries to measure the O(n) term.
In the last patch there was an addition to the benchmarks to have HMAC performance as well.
Sorry I missed that. Was there really any measureable difference between hash and hmac-hash? The "update" processing is the same (except perhaps an additional function call).
BTW, I'm currently debugging some ARM neon code for umac_nh. Looks like umac32 will be about 10 times faster than sha1. And neon is *so* much nicer to work with than the sse instructions on x86.
Regards, /Niels