linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] [CRYPTO] Add optimized SHA-1 implementation for i486+

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:	Sat, 09 Jun 2007 16:23:27 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
CC:	Benjamin Gilbert <bgilbert@...cmu.edu>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] [CRYPTO] Add optimized SHA-1 implementation for i486+

Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:42:53PM -0400, Benjamin Gilbert wrote:
>> Add x86-optimized implementation of the SHA-1 hash function, taken from
>> Nettle under the LGPL.  This code will be enabled on kernels compiled for
>> 486es or better; kernels which support 386es will use the generic
>> implementation (since we need BSWAP).
>>
>> We disable building lib/sha1.o when an optimized implementation is
>> available, as the library link order for x86 (and x86_64) would otherwise
>> ignore the optimized version.  The existing optimized implementation for ARM
>> does not do this; the library link order for that architecture appears to
>> favor the arch/arm/ version automatically.  I've left this situation alone
>> since I'm not familiar with the ARM code, but a !ARM condition could be
>> added to CONFIG_SHA1_GENERIC if it makes sense.
>>
>> The code has been tested with tcrypt and the NIST test vectors.
> 
> Have you benchmarked this against lib/sha1.c? Please post the results.
> Until then, I'm frankly skeptical that your unrolled version is faster
> because when I introduced lib/sha1.c the rolled version therein won by
> a significant margin and had 1/10th the cache footprint.

Yes. And it also depends on the CPU as well.  Testing on a server-class 
x86 CPU (often with bigger L2, and perhaps even L1, cache) will produce 
different result than from popular but less-capable "value" CPUs.

	Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/