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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <551D7216.8010101@larc.usp.br> Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 13:45:10 -0300 From: Marcos Simplicio <mjunior@...c.usp.br> To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net Subject: Re: [PHC] OMG we have benchmarks On 02-Apr-15 11:48, Bill Cox wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com> wrote: > >> Hi Bill, >> >> On 04/02/2015 06:35 AM, Bill Cox wrote: >>> These charts look like Lyra2 is still running with 2 threads, and >>> Yescrypt is still running with 6 rounds rather than a more comparable >>> 2 rounds. >> >> The code for #if (nPARALLEL > 1) for Lyra2 is not compiled in. >> This is the patch >> >> https://github.com/mbroz/PHCtest/commit/2e0d07b4a3f7d2dd69a1729c6770c0e39938fdc4 > > > Your patch looks good. It compiles on my machine and runs with 1 thread. > I did have to move the -lcrypto to the end of the gcc command line to get > Pufferfish to compile. Do you know what causes this? > > >> Seriously, I do not want to tweak algorithms myself. >> I can add another version but point me to git where is the modification >> when author did these changes. But yescrypt was submitted in some form >> and I think it should be tested this way. >> > > I think running with default parameters is fine for one test, but this > shows the entry with the least computational hardness as being better than > the rest. I think we also need to run benchmarks where we compensate for > weaker default parameters to compare them more even. That comes without saying: it is useless to have a winner today just to discover tomorrow that we missed some aspect. That is why I believe normalizations are needed to compare the schemes and isolated one parameter, computational hardness of PWXForm vs. Blake2b vs. BlaMka being possibly one of them. As I understand it, discussing (and experimenting with) the possible other aspects is exactly the purpose of this list. :) On that matter, we are finishing running some tests in which the number of passes through memory and the (theoretical?) computational hardness of both yescrypt and Lyra2 are similar, namely: yescrypt with T=2 and everything else as usual vs. Lyra2 with T=1 and 1.5 rounds of BlaMka, which amounts for 12 MUL + 12 ADD + 12 XORs like pwxform. From what my students showed me, it seems to be a draw, but I prefer not to speculate without the actual experiments to support this impression. > The results still don't line up with mine, which is probably my fault > since I make a lot of mistakes. I'll track it down. However, this is a > case of one benchmarker doing work to validate another benchmarker. This > is a bit nuts, so I'll post what I think should happen. Basically, I think > we should require the authors to validate the numbers we post... > Confirmation from authors is indeed good (even though I may miss something). I did not complain, though, because that sounded right to me: at least the charts were similar to the results we reported in our Reference Guide. Then I confirmed with Ewerton that setting "nPARALLEL = 1" would do the trick. Sorry for allowing the confusion to flourish: I only found the e-mails discussing there was a possible confusion now that you have (?) solved it :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists