phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] The EARWORM password hash

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: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 08:35:11 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@...il.com>
Cc: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] The EARWORM password hash

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 02:11:28PM -0500, Daniel Franke wrote:
> Yes, my optimized implementation contains prefetch instructions. I get
> about a 5% performance hit if I comment them out.

I've since added the prefetch instructions to our escrypt tree, and I am
seeing much more of a speedup from them - more like 20% (6000 c/s to
7300 c/s in the test with 112 GiB ROM on 2 MiB pages) - and that's even
without one-ahead indexing like you had implemented (I haven't tried
adding that yet).  This is with scrypt's r=8 or similar, so ~1 KiB V
element size.  The first one or a few cache lines needed by BlockMix
might not be fully prefetched in time, but the following ones probably are.

I am also using the non-temporal hint for prefetches from the "ROM"
(unlike from the "RAM", which is much smaller and may reasonably have a
significant portion of it in L3 cache).  This hint helps a bit on some
machines, but makes no difference on others.  (If you only have the
"ROM", you probably don't need it.  We need it because we have RAM+ROM,
and don't want the "ROM" to throw any portions of "RAM" out of caches.)

Alexander