[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALx6S370xBZr2UzzuVb2t5L+S6JQwVKTZZfOA4vBALjJ3ojREQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 12:57:44 -0800
From: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To: George Spelvin <linux@...encehorizons.net>
Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
"Daniel J . Bernstein" <djb@...yp.to>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, vegard.nossum@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] siphash: add cryptographically secure PRF
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:41 PM, George Spelvin
<linux@...encehorizons.net> wrote:
> Tom Herbert wrote:
>> Tested this. Distribution and avalanche effect are still good. Speed
>> wise I see about a 33% improvement over siphash (20 nsecs/op versus 32
>> nsecs). That's about 3x of jhash speed (7 nsecs). So that might closer
>> to a more palatable replacement for jhash. Do we lose any security
>> advantages with halfsiphash?
>
> What are you testing on? And what input size? And does "33% improvement"
> mean 4/3 the rate and 3/4 the time? Or 2/3 the time and 3/2 the rate?
>
Sorry, that is over an IPv4 tuple. Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2660 0 @
2.20GHz. Recoded the function I was using to look like more like 64
bit version and yes it is indeed slower.
> These are very odd results. On a 64-bit machine, SipHash should be the
> same speed per round, and faster because it hashes more data per round.
> (Unless you're hitting some unexpected cache/decode effect due to REX
> prefixes.)
>
> On a 32-bit machine (other than ARM, where your results might make sense,
> or maybe if you're hashing large amounts of data), the difference should
> be larger.
>
> And yes, there is a *significant* security loss. SipHash is 128 bits
> ("don't worry about it"). hsiphash is 64 bits, which is known breakable
> ("worry about it"), so we have to do a careful analysis of the cost of
> a successful attack.
>
> As mentioned in the e-mails that just flew by, hsiphash is intended
> *only* for 32-bit machines which bog down on full SipHash. On all 64-bit
> machines, it will be implemented as an alias for SipHash and the security
> concerns will Just Go Away.
>
> The place where hsiphash is expected to make a big difference is 32-bit
> x86. If you only see 33% difference with "gcc -m32", I'm going to be
> very confused.
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.
