Skip to content

Add X25519MLKEM768 benchmarks #5616

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Add X25519MLKEM768 benchmarks #5616

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+6 −0

Conversation

@WillChilds-Klein
Copy link
Contributor

@WillChilds-Klein WillChilds-Klein commented Nov 14, 2025

Goal

Add benchmarks for ML-KEM handshakes.

Why

Performance analysis.

How

By doing the thing.

Callouts

n/a

Testing

$ pwd
/Users/childw/workplace/github/WillChilds-Klein/s2n-tls/bindings/rust/standard/benchmarks

$ uname -a
Darwin 7cf34deb0968 24.6.0 Darwin Kernel Version 24.6.0: Mon Jul 14 11:28:30 PDT 2025; root:xnu-11417.140.69~1/RELEASE_ARM64_T6030 arm64

$ cargo bench --bench handshake
...

$ open ../target/criterion/handshake-X25519MLKEM/report/index.html
...
image

Related

n/a

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

jmayclin
jmayclin reviewed Nov 20, 2025
View reviewed changes
bindings/rust/standard/benchmarks/src/setup.rs
(CipherSuite::TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384, KXGroup::Secp256R1) => "20190802",
(CipherSuite::TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256, KXGroup::X25519) => "20240417",
(CipherSuite::TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384, KXGroup::X25519) => "20190801",
(CipherSuite::TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256, KXGroup::X25519MLKEM768) => "default_tls13",
Copy link
Contributor

@jmayclin jmayclin Nov 20, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  1. We won't want to use named policies, as they can be updated in the future, so prefer a numbered policy for stability
  2. I don't think it's correct to have both of these mapping to the same policy. Generally the policy should have the mapped options as the highest preference. When an s2n-tls client is handshaking with an s2n-tls server, it can't negotiated both of these.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jmayclin jmayclin jmayclin left review comments

At least 2 approving reviews are required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@WillChilds-Klein @jmayclin