Hello, this looks quite good - I am strongly interested. :-) Best regards, Peter Müller > On Mon, 2018-06-18 at 09:40 +1000, Mathew McBride wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> There are two crypto options on our board: >> - ARMv8 Cryptography instructions (similar to AES-NI on x86) >> - Freescale SEC/CAAM engine (a 'hardware accelerator' that can do many >> TLS,IPSec etc. operations) >> I am certain that an RNG is part of the SEC engine, but I need to check the >> driver status on Linux. >> >> /proc/crypto output for those interested: >> https://gist.github.com/mcbridematt/11f14c78ed4e35e97adf2f027010e374 > > Wow, that is a very extensive list of supported ciphers and hashes as well as > the combination of HMAC + cipher mode. > > IPsec in the kernel will basically be not consuming any CPU cycles for crypto. > > Best, > -Michael > >> >> Regards, >> Mathew >> >> On 15/6/18, 3:09 am, "Peter Müller" wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> this board sounds very interesting indeed (trustworthy hardware - yay!). >> However, after reading the datasheet it did not became clear to me if it >> has some built-in random number generator and/or cryptography >> acceleration. >> >> Apart from some low-level backdoors (baked into USB, ... firmware chips) >> it seems like this is suitable for security relevant devices. Looking >> forward to hear some experiences with IPFire on it. :-) >> >> Best regards, >> Peter Müller >> >> > Hey Matt, >> > >> > On Mon, 2018-05-28 at 20:32 +1000, Mathew McBride wrote: >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> >> >> Just in response to your questions: >> >> On 25/5/18, 11:10 pm, "Michael Tremer" >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I think you hardware is good enough for a builder. But I still am >> not sure >> >> what >> >> to expect from the CPU. It will be faster than a Raspberry Pi, but >> not a >> >> Mustang. >> >> >> >> We did some benchmarks with the Phoronix test suite a while ago, this >> will >> >> give you an idea: >> >> http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1708303-TR- >> >> 1703199RI93&obr_hgv=Traverse+LS1043+Prototype >> > >> > I had a look at that. And yes indeed, it is a bit hard to figure out the >> > performance by the CPU name alone for most ARM SoCs. There is no >> branding in >> > order of performance (or similar) like Intel has. >> > >> > That might actually turn out to be a bigger marketing problem, but we >> will see >> > that in the future. >> > >> >> To give an idea of the Cortex (ARM designed)-based core performance: >> >> >> >> The LS1043 has the same A53 cores as the RPi3, but performs better due >> to >> >> having more cache, DDR4 etc (and higher clock). >> > >> > Performance is also coming from the rest of the periphery. The RPi has a >> slow >> > and not very stable USB bus to talk to the network to and SD card >> storage. Even >> > with a faster CPU it might very often just wait for data. >> > >> > We have been trying to tell people that they should look out for some >> specific >> > features like cache and good single-core performance. >> > >> >> A72 is about double A53 in performance (and power consumption!) per >> MHz, as >> >> A72 is a modern out-of-order speculative core (it did get hit with the >> >> Meltdown/Spectre issue). >> > >> > Yes, wouldn't mind to have some systems based on that one since the A53 >> will be >> > too slow for really large enterprise deployments. >> > >> >> The latest gen of ARM64 server cores would all be well above A72, your >> Mustang >> >> is probably around the A72 level. >> >> >> >> In general, ARM network SoCs try to work 'smarter' instead of 'harder', >> so the >> >> high network performance comes from having very good network silicon, >> taking >> >> advantage of crypto accelerators etc. >> > >> > I prefer the NICs in the SoC which gives great performance. The >> disadvantage >> > only is that they sometimes to odd configurations like 5x 1G and 1x 10G >> in this >> > case which I don't really understand. The only use-case that makes sense >> to me >> > is a server but for that the CPU is too slow and people would probably >> go for a >> > A72-class CPU. >> > >> >> > There is a TrustZone firmware running in the ring/EL above the >> OS, for >> >> the NXP >> >> > Layerscape/QorIQ SoC's this firmware is open source, and not >> strictly >> >> required >> >> > to run the system (it gets loaded by u-boot after power on). >> >> >> >> What does the firmware do? >> >> It implements some vendor-specific power-management extensions (PSCI), >> as well >> >> as some TPM-like functions. >> >> NXP provides a good overview: https://github.com/qoriq-open-source/ppa- >> generic >> >> /blob/integration/ReleaseNotes.txt >> >> I am not a security expert, but it could be a good test environment for >> secure >> >> boot, private key storage and other things. >> > >> > Great that this is entirely open. >> > >> > -Michael >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Matt >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company." >> >> >> >> -- "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."