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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:21:29 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] multiply-hardening (Re: NoelKDF ready for submission)

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 09:00:29AM -0500, Bill Cox wrote:
> Actually, my little test loop above always has *from in L1 cache
> because it it always points to the first block of mem.  The actual
> loop in NeolKDF does read from a random previous block.

Yes, I had noticed both of these.

> I am not yet able to explain this.  I compared the generated assembly
> code, and the loops are very similar, with only scalar instructions
> generated.  The mask operation comes right after the multiply where it
> seems like it should happen in parallel.

Yes, but this may mean that the load starts 1 or 2 cycles after the
multiply started, although register renaming and out-of-order execution
could have helped.

> When I iterate the inner
> loop 10X to amplify the impact of this effect versus memory
> allocation, I see that changing the from pointer to mem + (value &
> mask) versus (mem + j) results in almost a 2X slowdown.  This is nuts!

I am also surprised the slowdown is so significant.

Maybe try two "rounds" of the multiply per one random lookup, if it
somehow takes more multiply latency to hide the latency of the mask+load?

> When I switch to randomizing the "prev" address, the same slowdown
> happens, but just a bit worse, likely due to the increased sequential
> work required.

Right.

In my testing on Haswell earlier today, it was 1.5x for randomizing the
"from" address (when "from" is in L1, which would not be the case in
NoelKDF) and 2x for randomizing the "prev" address.

> > You might want to decouple the multiply latency hardening from random
> > reads (make it two separate chains, only joined at end of block).
> >
> > Alexander
> 
> I see you've suggested this multiple times :-)  It's a fantastic idea,
> and I am going to play around with it.  I agree that with this idea,
> it should be possible to max out bandwidth while having solid
> multiplication-time hardening, at least for CPUs with SSE.

Yeah.  The worst drawback of it that I currently see is that you'd have
to manually adjust the length of chains such that they finish at roughly
the same time without leaving much resources idle.  On a future CPU,
this may correspond to keeping some of the resources idle, with the
total running time dominated by one of the chains.  In fact, this is
very similar to what we're trying to cause for non-CPU attackers - but
it might bite us too, when our own hardware changes.  A way around that
is to have more tunable parameters, to be encoded along with hashes, so
that the chains can be kept roughly the same duration on the currently
relevant defensive hardware.  In sim-mix.c that I posted, "ROUNDS" would
be such a tunable (in that file it controls the amount of computation
per memory access, but we can as well have two rounds count settings to
separately control the computation by two chains vs. memory accesses by
one or both of them).  New drawback is code complexity and having too
many tunables...

> On CPUs without SSE, the multiplication hardening would be diminished,

Why would it be?  On the contrary, I think only it might remain,
although it's up to you to choose how you handle that.  You could have
just one scalar thread doing sequential multiplies like you have now, or
you could have that one scalar thread do multiplies and random lookups,
or you could have two scalar threads (one of each kind), or you could
have one scalar thread do random lookups without multiplies so that in
this mode your KDF is friendly to ancient CPUs:

> but as
> you suggested, this may be a good thing, since those older CPUs may
> have inefficient multiplication anyway, and we'd likely be better off
> going for max memory bandwidth in that case.

I was referring to ancient non-x86 CPUs, which are still supported by
two *BSD projects.  On simply older CPUs like Pentium 1 and Pentium 4,
multiplication is 9 to 11 cycles - nasty, but not necessarily
prohibitive, considering that we'd have a few other instructions in the
sequence as well, which won't be impacted as bad (so it may be e.g. 4-6
cycles/loop on modern CPUs and PPro/P2/P3 vs. 11-13 cycles/loop on P1/P4).

If we do support a multiplication-less mode, I wouldn't mind having a
way to enable it for P1/P4 as well, though, if e.g. a distro finds it
important to have good efficiency on those old machines.

> Throwing in a
> cryptographic hash after every block hash is another great idea I will
> play around with.  That's a good way to combine the multiplication
> chain and SSE chains.
> 
> You're simultaneously suggesting how to max out the bandwidth,
> alleviate what is likely to be seen by the PHC as a serious weakness
> (billion non-crypto-hashes in series), how to address bcrypt, and
> GPUs.  I guess I've said before that it's hard for me to claim being
> the primary author of NoelKDF, rather than the code monkey
> implementing the great ideas from SolarDesigner and Christian Forler.
> However, I'm a pretty good code monkey.

I appreciate how you're trying things out, and you're contributing some
good ideas too.

> This small random read runtime penalty is driving me crazy.  If it
> were just my Ivy Bridge processor, I could maybe explain it as a weird
> Intel/gcc quirk.  I just don't see how to explain this happening on
> both Intel and AMD processors while the assembly code looks about
> right.

Yes, I was surprised too.

Maybe try precomputing the random address one iteration in advance.
In bcrypt, there are 4 S-box lookups, which means that computation (on
results of first 2 lookups) doesn't have to start (or be stalled) until
all 4 lookups are issued.  So you have a little bit of room for
parallelism too, without necessarily becoming worse than bcrypt.

Alexander

Powered by blists - more mailing lists