Message-ID: <CAELGc4X-FuHF+AzOrP8eeQv=7xA_ahU6u3QT7mdoS+g8ZKGyzA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 01:13:59 +0800
From: Hongjun Wu <wuhongjun@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Cc: Agnieszka Bielec <bielecagnieszka8@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PHC] POMELO v2

Dear Axel,

Thank you very much for the comments!

You are right.  There is a typo in the comments in the POMELO v2 codes.
In the POMELO v2, the salt size is 64 bytes.

Best Regards,
hongjun

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Agnieszka, one of our prospective GSoC students (CC'ed on this message)
> is currently working to add support for PHC finalists into JtR -jumbo,
> including OpenCL implementations.  She already has an initial
> implementation of POMELO v2 in OpenCL, ported from the reference C code.
> While this is just an initial hack, I thought I'd let this list know.
> Discussion is currently in progress on the john-dev mailing list.
>
> While at it, Agnieszka pointed out this inconsistency in the POMELO v2
> reference code:
>
>     //check the size of password, salt and output. Password is at most 256
> bytes; the salt is at most 32 bytes.
>     if (inlen > 256 || saltlen > 64 || outlen > 256 || inlen < 0 ||
> saltlen < 0 || outlen < 0) return 1;
>
> Note how the comment says "the salt is at most 32 bytes", but the check
> is for "saltlen > 64".  This inconsistency is present in pomelo_x64.c
> and pomelo_sse2.c, but not in pomelo_avx2.c (which says 64 in both the
> comment and the code).  Which is right?
>
> Some other observations on POMELO v2:
>
> Unlike in v1, there's 256-bit SIMD parallelism in v2.  However, POMELO
> v2 still tries to discourage use of even wider SIMD.
>
> The random table lookups are more frequent than v1's, maybe bringing in
> some bcrypt-like GPU unfriendliness.  However, with the 256-bit SIMD
> parallelism, non-SIMD defensive implementations (such as plain 64-bit
> and especially 32-bit builds) are now at a disadvantage in this respect.
> (It's the same tradeoff I faced in yescrypt, where it can be dealt with
> by tuning pwxform settings.)
>
> The "& mask" and subsequent S[] lookups can be made more efficient at no
> security loss by redefining which bits are being masked and thus
> pre-shifting the (constant for each invocation) mask by 5 (for 32-byte
> S[] elements), thereby directly obtaining the byte offsets.  As it is,
> POMELO v2 requires either indexed addressing (with the index being
> implicitly shifted left by 5 by the CPU) or explicit extra shift
> instructions, either of which (and especially the latter) may have
> performance cost.  On x86, indexed access is only available for up to
> 8-byte quantities, so we get explicit shift instructions in the
> generated code.
>
> solar@...l:~/pomelo/POMELO-v2/POMELO/pomelo_code_avx2$ objdump -d
> pomelo_avx2.o | fgrep -c 'shl    $0x5,'
> 24
>
> yescrypt includes the optimization I mentioned above (optimally
> pre-shifted mask, to avoid these shifts).  Unfortunately, getting this
> optimization into POMELO now would be a tweak (it affects which hashes
> are computed, since different bits would be used for index).  If we
> introduce a standardization & tweaks-by-panel phase (which I think we
> should) and POMELO is chosen as a winner, perhaps this is something we
> should fix (in coordination with the author, indeed).
>
> Finally, in case some of us haven't noticed yet, POMELO v2 gives very
> competitive speeds in its specification document - e.g., 1.1 seconds on
> i7-4770K (when running one thread, I guess) for 1 GB.  This is on par
> with Lyra2 and yescrypt.  I haven't run my own benchmarks yet, but if
> this is true then POMELO v2 has moved from competing with Pufferfish
> only (like POMELO v1 did before) to also competing with Lyra2 and
> yescrypt (and continuing to compete with Pufferfish as well).  Nice!
>
> Alexander
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists