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: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 06:36:50 +0400
From: Solar Designer <>
Subject: Re: [PHC] wider integer multiply on 32-bit x86

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 06:23:32PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Solar Designer <> wrote:
> > I think 4 instructions, including the loads and stores, for a 63x63->63
> > multiply is rather good.  Without this trick, it'd take 4 _multiplies_
> > to implement the equivalent via 32x32->32 (or perhaps 3 multiplies if we
> > also use the 32x32->64).  Some bigint library could use this trick,
> > perhaps for some nice speedup on those older CPUs/builds (does any use
> > it already?)
> I think that Poly1305 and related things use a similar trick, at least
> on some architectures.

I thought Poly1305 used IEEE double, so up to 53-bit only, and it's not
a bigint library.  But yes, it's similar.

> Silly question, though: why are i387 instructions better than SSE2 here?

Not better, but as I mentioned I'd expect many real-world builds to be
SSE2-less, unfortunately.  Even when running on an SSE2-capable CPU.

On the other hand, if someone is OK with building a version that
contains pieces of asm, perhaps they'd be OK with it detecting the CPU
type and using SSE2 if available.  So the point is moot.

As to whether we care to be more efficient when actually running on a P3
or older, I'm not sure.  I think this will depend on use case.  For some
use cases (free operating systems supporting legacy machines and
architectures, along with modern ones), even the dependency on _any_
multiply is too much.  The question is then: is it worth having special
support for (roughly) P1 through P3, when many of the same use cases
also need support for VAX and such? %-)  I'm not sure.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists