[openssl-project] Removing assembler for outdated algorithms

[Salz, Rich]

There is a maintenance cost.  Maybe it is negligible, but there is a cost.

  *   The build rules are more complicated; we have had errors with .S vs .s files
  *   There are more internal config parameters to understand
  *   There are more ifdefs in the code
  *   There’s only one person who really understands the perlasm stuff

I think “significant maintenance cost” is not the question to ask.  It’s maintenance and risk versus use.

From: "tjh at openssl.org" <tjh at openssl.org>
Reply-To: "openssl-project at openssl.org" <openssl-project at openssl.org>
Date: Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 4:29 PM
To: "openssl-project at openssl.org" <openssl-project at openssl.org>
Subject: Re: [openssl-project] Removing assembler for outdated algorithms

Before we look at removing things like this, I think we should look at whether or not they actually have a significant maintenance cost.

Tim.


On 11 Feb. 2018 7:08 am, "Salz, Rich" <rsalz at akamai.com<mailto:rsalz at akamai.com>> wrote:
This is derived from bureau/libcrypto-proposal that Emilila made in November 2015.

We should remove the assembler versions of the following
                Blowfish, cast, des, rc4, rc5, ripemd, whirlpool, md5

The reason is that they are outdated, not in use very much, and optimization is not important, compared to having a single reference source that we can maintain and debug.


_______________________________________________
openssl-project mailing list
openssl-project at openssl.org<mailto:openssl-project at openssl.org>
https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mta.openssl.org_mailman_listinfo_openssl-2Dproject&d=DwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=4LM0GbR0h9Fvx86FtsKI-w&m=47KNj5EcM4J5bu7SggXsMIQAazYObKX2PjUtZ71Dl3U&s=fh1Zx5a9eDRlRkP-mVoUh5Wl49tdWCb5J3UpjZNMuR4&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-project/attachments/20180210/ecceb09c/attachment-0001.html>