linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] random: use BLAKE2s instead of SHA1 in extraction

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:   Fri, 14 Jan 2022 18:31:42 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] random: use BLAKE2s instead of SHA1 in extraction

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 6:27 PM David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
>
> From: Jason A. Donenfeld
> > Sent: 11 January 2022 12:50
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 1:28 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> > > If you're really quite concerned about m68k code size, I can probably
> > > do some things to reduce that. For example, blake2s256_hmac is only
> > > used by wireguard and it could probably be made local there. And with
> > > some trivial loop re-rolling, I can shave off another 2300 bytes. And
> > > I bet I can find a few other things too. The question is: how
> > > important is this to you?
> >
> > And with another trick (see below), another extra 1000 bytes or so
> > shaved off. Aside from moving blake2s256_hmac, I'm not really super
> > enthusiastic about making these changes, but depending on how important
> > this is to you, maybe we can make something work. There are probably
> > additional possibilities too with the code.
>
> Quite clearly whoever wrote the unrolled loops needs their head examined.
> It is extremely unlikely that a cpu has enough registers to implement it
> effeciently.

Feel free to send a patch doing this, along with benchmarks. It
doesn't seem impossible to me that re-rolling the rounds might be
better on some platforms. The question is - is it really? And if so,
which ones? And for what varieties of inputs? If you put some research
into this, please do CC me on patches.

Jason