netdev - Re: Extensible hashing and RCU

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:55:15 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Cc:	"Michael K. Edwards" <medwards.linux@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, akepner@....com,
	linux@...izon.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, bcrl@...ck.org
Subject: Re: Extensible hashing and RCU

On Tuesday 20 February 2007 19:00, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> As you can see, jhash has problems in a really trivial case of 2^16,
> which in local lan is a disaster. The only reason jenkins hash is good
> for hashing purposes is that is it more complex than xor one, and thus
> it is harder to find a collision law. That's all.
> And it is two times slower.

I see no problems at all. An attacker can not exploit the fact that two (or 
three) different values of sport will hit the same hash bucket.

A hash function may have collisions. This is *designed* like that.

The complexity of the hash function is a tradeoff. A perfect hash would be :
- Perfect distribution
- Hard (or even : impossible) to guess for an attacker.
- No CPU cost.

There is no perfect hash function... given 96 bits in input.
So what ? hashes are 'badly broken' ?
Thats just not even funny Evgeniy.

The 'two times slower' is a simplistic view, or maybe you have an alien CPU, 
or a CPU from the past ?

On my oprofile, rt_hash_code() uses 0.24% of cpu (about 50 x86_64 
instructions)

Each time a cache miss is done because your bucket length is (X+1) instead of 
(X), your CPU is stuck while it could have do 150 instructions. Next CPUS 
will do 300 instructions per cache miss, maybe 1000 one day... yes, life is 
hard.

I added to my 'simulator_plugged_on_real_server' the average cost calculation, 
relative to number of cache line per lookup.

ehash_size=2^20
xor hash :
386290 sockets, Avg lookup cost=3.2604 cache lines/lookup
393667 sockets, Avg lookup cost=3.30579 cache lines/lookup
400777 sockets, Avg lookup cost=3.3493 cache lines/lookup
404720 sockets, Avg lookup cost=3.36705 cache lines/lookup
406671 sockets, Avg lookup cost=3.37677 cache lines/lookup
jenkin hash:
386290 sockets, Avg lookup cost=2.36763 cache lines/lookup
393667 sockets, Avg lookup cost=2.37533 cache lines/lookup
400777 sockets, Avg lookup cost=2.38211 cache lines/lookup
404720 sockets, Avg lookup cost=2.38582 cache lines/lookup
406671 sockets, Avg lookup cost=2.38679 cache lines/lookup

(you can see that when number of sockets increase, the xor hash becomes worst)

So the jenkin hash function CPU cost is balanced by the fact its distribution 
is better. In the end you are faster.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html