linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add optimized SHA-1 implementations for x86 and 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:30:32 +0200
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
To:	Benjamin Gilbert <bgilbert@...cmu.edu>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Add optimized SHA-1 implementations for x86 and
	x86_64

On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:42:42PM -0400, Benjamin Gilbert wrote:
> The following 3-part series adds assembly implementations of the SHA-1
> transform for x86 and x86_64.  For x86_64 the optimized code is always
> selected; on x86 it is selected if the kernel is compiled for i486 or above
> (since the code needs BSWAP).  These changes primarily improve the
> performance of the CryptoAPI SHA-1 module and of /dev/urandom.  I've
> included some performance data from my test boxes below.
> 
> This version incorporates feedback from Herbert Xu.  Andrew, I'm sending
> this to you because of the (admittedly tiny) intersection with arm and s390
> in part 1.
> 
> -
> 
> tcrypt performance tests:
> 
> === Pentium IV in 32-bit mode, average of 5 trials ===
> Test#  Bytes/  Bytes/  Cyc/B  Cyc/B  Change
>...
> I've also done informal tests on other boxes, and the performance
> improvement has been in the same ballpark.
> 
> On the aforementioned Pentium IV, /dev/urandom throughput goes from 3.7 MB/s
> to 5.6 MB/s with the patches; on the Core 2, it increases from 5.5 MB/s to
> 8.1 MB/s.
>...

With which gcc version and compiler flags?

And why is the C code slower?
Problems in the C code?
gcc problems?

Generally, I'd really prefer one C implementation that works good on all 
platforms over getting dozens of different assembler implemenations, 
each potentially with different bugs.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/