linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] secure_seq: use siphash24 instead of md5

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:   Wed, 14 Dec 2016 21:27:07 +0100
From:   Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] secure_seq: use siphash24 instead of md5_transform

Hey Jason,

On 14.12.2016 20:38, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> <hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
>> I don't think this helps. Did you test it? I don't see reason why
>> padding could be left out between `d' and `end' because of the flexible
>> array member?
> 
> Because the type u8 doesn't require any alignment requirements, it can
> nestle right up there cozy with the u16:
> 
> zx2c4@...nkpad ~ $ cat a.c
> #include <stdint.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stddef.h>
> int main()
> {
>        struct {
>                uint64_t a;
>                uint32_t b;
>                uint32_t c;
>                uint16_t d;
>                char x[];
>        } a;
>        printf("%zu\n", sizeof(a));
>        printf("%zu\n", offsetof(typeof(a), x));
>        return 0;
> }
> zx2c4@...nkpad ~ $ gcc a.c
> zx2c4@...nkpad ~ $ ./a.out
> 24
> 18

Sorry, I misread the patch. You are using offsetof. In this case remove
the char x[] and just use offsetofend because it is misleading
otherwise. Should work like that though.

What I don't really understand is that the addition of this complexity
actually reduces the performance, as you have to take the "if (left)"
branch during hashing and causes you to make a load_unaligned_zeropad.

Bye,
Hannes