phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Argon is highly parallelizable...

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140827000050.GA19411@openwall.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 04:00:50 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Argon is highly parallelizable...

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 06:56:23PM -0400, Bill Cox wrote:
> Both were my dumb mistakes, which I continue to deliver rapid-fire!
> The Argon paper says t_cost should be 236 for 10KiB, (not 234 for
> 10MiB).  Why I set -logmcost to 10 I can't even guess, because that
> was a 1MiB hash!  For 16MiB, they say to use t_cost = 3, so here's
> what I should have posted:
> 
> Linux-AES-NI> time Argon-Optimized -taglength 32 -logmcost 14 -tcost 3
> - -pwdlen 64 -saltlen 16 -threads 3
> Memory allocated: 16 MBytes, 3 threads
> Argon:  8.56 cpb 133.83 Mcycles 0.0963 seconds
> 
> real	0m0.043s
> user	0m0.094s
> sys	0m0.004s
> 
> It is still not in the 100's to 1000's of authentications per second,
> though.

This is much more reasonable, but yes.

> > solar@...l:~/yescrypt/t$ time ./phc-test >/dev/null m_cost=17
> > (1048576 KiB), t_cost=0 4 c/s real, 0 c/s virtual (258 hashes in
> > 63.78 seconds)
> > 
> > real    1m3.778s user    5m38.425s sys     1m24.073s
> > 
> > Core i7-4770K, 8 threads.
> 
> Nice.  Is this fine speed.  Can I get more with reduced rounds?

[...]
> > Either way, it's approx. 4 yescrypt/second vs. one Argon per 4
> > seconds, so 16x faster, at 1 GiB including (de)allocation overhead.
> > I assume that i7-4770K is about as fast as Bill's i7-3770.  I am
> > not using AVX2 in these tests.
> > 
> > Alexander
> 
> It should be close.  This run was with 8 Salsa rounds?  Can I please
> have a 2-round option?  :-)

This is with the current hard-coded defaults of 6 pwxform rounds and 8
Salsa20 rounds.  The Salsa20 rounds count doesn't matter all that much
anymore, except with low r.

In my testing, pwxform rounds count below 6 may make yescrypt weaker
than bcrypt in terms of GPU attack resistance at some otherwise sane
low memory settings.  This is a reason why I am not using a lower
default.  But if you like, and since this may be OK at 1 GiB, here is
with 2 pwxform rounds (but still with 8 Salsa20 rounds):

solar@...l:~/yescrypt/t$ time ./phc-test >/dev/null
m_cost=17 (1048576 KiB), t_cost=0
4 c/s real, 0 c/s virtual (258 hashes in 53.14 seconds)

real    0m53.142s
user    4m0.355s
sys     1m37.674s

63.78/53.14 = ~1.20

As you can see, that's 20% faster memory filling with 3x less
computation for most sub-blocks (for 7 out of 8, since it's r=8).
Since it's also 3x less multiplication latency hardening, this is
probably weaker against ASIC attacks, unless those are memory rather
than computation bound.

Much more speedup may be achieved by removing the memory (de)allocation
overhead or/and by measuring throughput for 8 concurrent
non-synchronized 1-thread instances (like the "userom" benchmark would)
rather than speed of one 8-thread instance (like the above test did),
although for KDF use the overhead is probably actually relevant (unlike
for user authentication on a busy server).  In this test, while the
memory is being (de)allocated, no computation happens, whereas with
non-synchronized 1-thread instances most of them would run even when
some are taking care of the (de)allocation.

Alexander