Re: [Bacula-devel] [Bacula-users] Possibility of parallelising encryption?

[Phil S. <al...@me...>]

On 04/08/10 02:16, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Bacula should probably work with Intel's hardware crypto out of the box.
> If it doesn't, most likely all that'd be required would be to call:
> 
>         ENGINE_load_builtin_engines();
>         ENGINE_register_all_complete();
> 
> in init_crypto() , and:
> 
>         ENGINE_cleanup();
> 
> when crypto is cleaned up. See "man 3 engine". In fact, as PadLock
> support comes pre-loaded and Intel crypto probably will too, it may not
> even be neccessary to call ENGINE_load_builtin_engines() at all, only
> ENGINE_register_all_complete(). Asking openssl to load all engines will
> let it use other less common hardware crypto systems like some of the
> add-on hw crypto PCI cards, though, and it's cheap enough not to even be
> detectable in something as long-lived as bacula-fd.
> 
> OpenSSL is smart enough to pick a hardware engine if one exists, and
> fall back to software if there's no suitable engine for the task at
> hand. IIRC that's all I had to do to patch PadLock support into OpenSSH
> when I needed it for my thin clients at work.
> 
> It's a trivial change that would enable Bacula to use any builtin
> hardware crypto engine supported by OpenSSL. Worth making, so that by
> the time the new Intel hardware hits Bacula supports it?
> 
> --
> Craig Ringer


Sounds like a good idea to me.  Want to write up a patch?


-- 
  Phil Stracchino, CDK#2     DoD#299792458     ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
  al...@ca...   al...@me...   ph...@co...
         Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
                 It's not the years, it's the mileage.