Rustls Outperforms OpenSSL and BoringSSL
www.memorysafety.org
ISRG has been investing heavily in the Rustls TLS library over the past few years. Our goal is to create a library that is both memory safe and a leader in performance. Back in January of this year we published a post about the start of our performance journey. We've come a long way since then and we're excited to share an update on Rustls performance today. What is Rustls? Rustls is a memory safe TLS implementation with a focus on performance.
  • @[email protected]
    2•36 minutes ago

    Some of the notes highlight that performance differences in specific tests were due to AVX-512 support. I’d like to see a post going into detail about what challenges the libraries (or their dependencies) went through to get that integrated and how much of an increase came from it.

  • JoYoEnglish
    5•9 hours ago

    very nice, now let’s see that binary size.

    • @[email protected]
      3•1 hour ago

      Unless the binary size difference is insane, who would say “oh well we were going to pick the library that wasn’t riddled with security issues but we decided to save 2MB instead, hope that makes you feel better about your $12m cybersecurity fine!”.

      • @[email protected]
        1•24 minutes ago

        There are only going to be edge-cases where the binary size will really cause headache. Individual projects probably won’t worry too much about a size difference if it’s less than 10-20MB.

        • JoYoEnglish
          1•2 minutes ago

          my whole career is those edge cases

    • @Solemarc
      0•5 hours ago

      I can’t be bothered to build them but looking at the releases on GitHub openssl 3.4.0 is 17.5mb and rustls is 2.6mb. both of these releases are source files not binaries but I don’t see how rustls could possibly be larger than openssl.

      • @[email protected]
        6•4 hours ago

        Comparing source code sizes is completely meaningless. Rust projects are usually smaller with far more granular dependencies.