Hacker News Reader

I wonder if the performance gains are due to BoringSSL being faster than OpenSSL?

I 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.

X.509 parsing has no allocations and call depth is significantly less than OpenSSL.

That’s very cool!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com