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  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, 14 May 2016 11:35:25 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <>
To:	George Spelvin <>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Rik van Riel <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/7] lib/hashmod: Add modulo based hash mechanism

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 8:54 PM, George Spelvin <> wrote:
> There are exactly three architectures which (some models) don't have
> an efficient 32x32->32-bit multiply:
> - arch/m58k: MC68000 (and 68010 and 68328) no-mmu
> - arch/h8300: Most (all?) of the H8 processor series
> - arch/microblaze: Depending on Verilog compilation options

I wouldn't worry about it too much.

The architectures where performance really matters are x86, ARM and powerpc.

The rest need to *work* and not suck horribly, but we're not going to
try to do cycle counting for them. It's not worth the pain.

If an architecture doesn't have a barrel shifter, it's not going to
have fast hash functions.

So I'd be ok with just saying "32-bit architectures are going to use a
multiply with non-sparse bits". Not a problem.

We do want to make sure that hash_64 isn't totally disgusting on
32-bit architectures (but that's a fairly rare case), so we probably
do want to have that function fall back on something else than a 64x64
multiply on a 32-bit architecture. Presumably just "mix the two 32-bit
words into one, then use hash_32() on that" is good enough.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists