linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH crypto 1/2] lib/crypto: blake2s-generic: reduce code size on small systems

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, 12 Jan 2022 23:00:48 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@...ts.zx2c4.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH crypto 1/2] lib/crypto: blake2s-generic: reduce code size
 on small systems

Hi David,

On 1/12/22, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
> I think you mentioned in another thread that the buffers (eg for IPv6
> addresses) are actually often quite short.
>
> For short buffers the 'rolled-up' loop may be of similar performance
> to the unrolled one because of the time taken to read all the instructions
> into the I-cache and decode them.
> If the loop ends up small enough it will fit into the 'decoded loop
> buffer' of modern Intel x86 cpu and won't even need decoding on
> each iteration.
>
> I really suspect that the heavily unrolled loop is only really fast
> for big buffers and/or when it is already in the I-cache.
> In real life I wonder how often that actually happens?
> Especially for the uses the kernel is making of the code.
>
> You need to benchmark single executions of the function
> (doable on x86 with the performance monitor cycle counter)
> to get typical/best clocks/byte figures rather than a
> big average for repeated operation on a long buffer.
>
> 	David

This patch has been dropped entirely from future revisions. The latest
as of writing is at:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/20220111220506.742067-1-Jason@zx2c4.com/

If you'd like to do something with blake2s, by all means submit a
patch and include various rationale and metrics and benchmarks. I do
not intend to do that myself and do not think my particular patch here
should be merged. But if you'd like to do something, feel free to CC
me for a review. However, as mentioned, I don't think much needs to be
done here.

Again, v3 is here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/20220111220506.742067-1-Jason@zx2c4.com/

Thanks,
Jason