phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] simplifying yescrypt

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: <20150130234653.GA20846@openwall.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2015 02:46:53 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] simplifying yescrypt

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 06:04:40AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> More detail on one of the possible changes:
> 
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:58:37AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> > - Drop support for ROM access frequency mask.  In practice, this will
> > mean no ROM-on-SSD support (only ROM-in-RAM will be supported).  The
> > reason why I am considering dropping this is that in most cases where I
> > would have recommended use of ROM-on-SSD I would _also_ recommend
> > simultaneous use of ROM-in-RAM, and then it would need to be two ROMs,
> > with different access frequency, resulting in even greater complexity.
> > Perhaps just one mask (only for the ROM-on-SSD) would be enough even in
> > that two-ROMs case, though.
> 
> My options are:
> 
> 1. Leave things as-is, meaning that "large" yescrypt users (on dedicated
> authentication servers) will have to choose either ROM-in-RAM or
> ROM-on-SSD, but not both at once (well, except possibly by chaining two
> invocations of yescrypt, which is a suboptimal hack).
> 
> 2. Add support for two ROMs at once.
> 
> 3. Drop support for controlling ROM access frequency (and thus for
> ROM-on-SSD).

I implemented option #3 in the yescrypt tweaks I submitted yesterday.

(I am likely to submit another tweaked revision before the deadline, so
probably only that later one will be published, unless something
prevents me from submitting it in time.  But this change will stay
either way.)

> Obviously, only #3 fits the topic of this posting, but I'd like this
> community's opinions on which option is best.  Technically, I'd be able
> to introduce #1 or #2 in a superset of yescrypt later even if I go with
> #3 now, so the question may be whether we want ROM-on-SSD considered a
> supported feature in PHC context (in the PHC candidate or in a currently
> existing superset of it).
> 
> For ROM-in-RAM, there's normally no reason to use a mask other than 1,
> which means that 1/2 of reads (and obviously none of the writes) are
> from ROM.
> 
> BTW, the current API is defined to be extensible to multiple ROMs:
> 
> typedef yescrypt_region_t yescrypt_shared1_t;
> typedef struct {
> 	yescrypt_shared1_t shared1;
> 	uint32_t mask1;
> } yescrypt_shared_t;
> 
> As you can see, it mostly already has the complexity that would be
> associated with two ROMs.  yescrypt_shared_t struct would become e.g.:
> 
> typedef struct {
> 	yescrypt_shared1_t shared1, shared2;
> 	uint32_t mask1;
> } yescrypt_shared_t;
> 
> On the other hand, removing the mask (and thus keeping just ROM-in-RAM)
> would allow for:
> 
> typedef yescrypt_region_t yescrypt_shared_t;
> 
> and the extra struct would be gone.

I removed the extra struct as described above.

Alexander