On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 09:21:14PM +0000, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > On Wed, 2025-09-03 at 05:05 +0800, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 02, 2025 at 07:37:22PM +0000, Viacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > > > On Sat, 2025-08-30 at 21:28 +0800, Guan-Chun Wu wrote: > > > > Previously, ceph_base64_encode() used a bitstream approach, handling one > > > > input byte at a time and performing extra bit operations. While correct, > > > > this method was suboptimal. > > > > > > > > > > Sounds interesting! > > > > > > Is ceph_base64_decode() efficient then? > > > Do we have something in crypto library of Linux kernel? Maybe we can use > > > something efficient enough from there? > > > > > Hi Viacheslav, > > > > FYI, we already have base64 encode/decode implementations in > > lib/base64.c. As discussed in another thread [1], I think we can put > > the optimized version there and have users switch to call the library > > functions. > > > > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/38753d95-8503-4b72-9590-cb129aa49a41@xxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > Sounds great! Generalized version of this algorithm is much better than > supporting some implementation in Ceph code. Please note that ceph can not use the default base64 implementation because it uses the '_' character in the encoding, as explained in commit 64e86f632bf1 ("ceph: add base64 endcoding routines for encrypted names") That's why it implements it's own version according to an IMAP RFC, which uses '+' and ',' instead of '-' and '_'. Cheers, -- Luis
