linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v1 5/10] ext4: Add DX_HASH

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]

Message-ID: <20140924153531.GK17784@thunk.org>
Date:	Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:35:31 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>
Cc:	adilger@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 5/10] ext4: Add DX_HASH_SIPHASH24 support

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:08:28PM -0400, George Spelvin wrote:
> > Still, it would probably simpler to not try to assign
> > DX_HASH_SIPHASH24 to be 6, and to leave better comments about how the
> > hash values are used.
> 
> Is that "not try" supposed to be in there?

Sorry, typo.  Yes, it would be better to assign DX_HASH_SIPHASH24 to
be 6, and not to assign the code points 3, 4, and 5 just to be safe.

> BTW, initial benchmarking isn't showing much.  I created a 4 GB file
> syste, on a RAM disk with -i 1024, and tried the following:

> DEV=/tmp/FS
> MNT=/mnt

(I assume you're using tmpfs.)  There would be less overhead if you
actually used a real ramdisk, i.e., /dev/ram0, which might reduce some
of the variance and increase the percentage of the difference, but
yeah, it's not that surprising that we're not seeing much difference.

      	       	    	       	    	  - Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html