phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] wider integer multiply on 32-bit x86

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 05:03:09 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] wider integer multiply on 32-bit x86

On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 06:41:44PM -0500, Bill Cox wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> > Normally, on 32-bit x86 without SSE2 (thus, on Pentium 3 and older, or
> > when code is compiled such that SSE2 is not enabled) the widest integer
> > multiply available is 32x32->64, via the [I]MUL instruction.  There are
> > two problems with this: the instruction uses the specific EDX:EAX
> > registers, so we can't have more than one such multiply in progress
> > until we've read/replaced at least the EAX contents(*), and 32x32->64 is
> > not very wide.
> 
> You've talked me into 32x32->64 rather than 32x32->32.  It's slightly
> slower, but not enough to justify sticking with 32x32->32.  The
> slowdown is because in 64-bit mode, I have to right-shift the high
> 32-bits down to the low 32-bits to add it into a 32-bit register.
> That's pretty much the only difference.  It runs fast in 64-bit and
> 32-bit compiled versions.

It sounds like the slowdown you mention is actually from specifics of
your hash function, and could be avoided with a different hash function.

To me, a primary reason to prefer 32x32->64 is that it fits SIMD well
on both x86/SSE2+ and recent ARM.  As you can see in escrypt 0.3.1, I am
still trying to do both the SSE* memory accesses and the multiplies via
the same instructions, rather than via separate intermixed SIMD and
scalar instruction streams (as I think you're doing now per my earlier
suggestion).  I might fall back to that SIMD+scalar approach too, but I
don't want to give up on using the multipliers more fully just yet.

Alexander