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: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:09:56 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <>
To: discussions <>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Supporting AVX2/SSE2 or not with a single binary

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Bill Cox <> wrote:
> One reason I think we see applications running without SSE/AVX2
> support is that operating systems don't want to support two versions
> of a binary, and they have to support older machines.  The Blake2 code
> I've read does not provide for a single binary that supports both - I
> have to link either to the blake2-ref code or the blake2-sse code.  My
> TwoCats code has inherited this limitation, since I used the Blake2
> code as a roadmap for figuring out how SSE2 works.  These guys over on
> StackOverflow think they've got code to detect SIMD support and allow
> a single binary to support both:

That answer is crap.  You cannot detect whether AVX is usable using
just cpuid -- you need to use (IIRC) xgetbv as well.

On gcc 4.8 and up, function multiversioning [1] is probably the way to
go.  On Windows (if you want to support MSVC), you'll need to do
something different.  Of course, function multiversioning has the same
bug [2] and no one has fixed it yet.


> How cool is StackOverflow?  So, is this the right way to build
> high-speed crypto binaries now days?
> Bill

Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC

Powered by blists - more mailing lists