[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHmME9pR3tD2zknKsYaFaTJm_3aBBOA6c174hypm6S-q9wp5nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 21:55:51 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>, "Daniel J . Bernstein" <djb@...yp.to>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] siphash: add cryptographically secure hashtable function
Hey Tom,
Just following up on what I mentioned in my last email...
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> I think your suggestion for (2) will contribute to further
> optimizations for (1). In v2, I had another patch in there adding
> siphash_1word, siphash_2words, etc, like jhash, but I implemented it
> by taking u32 variables and then just concatenating these into a
> buffer and passing them to the main siphash function. I removed it
> from v3 because I thought that these kind of missed the whole point.
> In particular:
>
> a) siphash24_1word, siphash24_2words, siphash24_3words, etc should
> take u64, not u32, since that's what siphash operates on natively
I implemented these here:
https://git.zx2c4.com/linux-dev/commit/?h=siphash&id=4652b6f3643bdba217e2194d89661348bbac48a0
This will be part of the next version of the series I submit. It's not
immediately clear that using it is strictly faster than the struct
trick though. However, I'm not yet sure why this would be.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
