4 ms·
I wonder if the performance gains are due to BoringSSL being faster than OpenSSL?
by libeclipse 7y ago
I wonder if the performance gains are due to BoringSSL being faster than OpenSSL?
- steveklabnik 7y agoI linked to the in-depth explanations below; it has stuff like > The difference between OpenSSL and rustls appears to be thanks to an extra copy in the main data-path in OpenSSL. and > It appears OpenSSL recalculates and then discards the local public key when processing the server’s key share extension. This likely explains the larger performance deficit in this test. in it. So I doubt that it's the result of differences in the primitives.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y agoX.509 parsing has no allocations and call depth is significantly less than OpenSSL.
- steveklabnik 7y agoThat’s very cool!