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  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: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 17:44:24 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Fastest algorithm shootout with threads...

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 04:12:54AM -0700, Bill Cox wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> > Cool!  How many sequential MULs does TwoCats have per 1 KiB in that test?
> 
> By default, it does 2048 sequential multiplies in the integer unit in
> parallel with hashing a 16KiB block in the SIMD unit, and then hashes all
> the results together with a full Blake2s.  So, that's 128 sequential
> multiplies per 1KiB block.  However, this is tunable.

128 MULs per 1 KiB is impressive.  yescrypt only does 96, so 3/4 of
that, at PWXrounds=6.  I guess it's primarily the separation of the MUL
chain onto scalar units that helps achieve this (as well as the lack of
S-box lookups in that chain), and this has its pros and cons as
previously discussed.

16 KiB block size is problematic wrt the Argon team's attack on iterated
block functions.  I guess Catena suffers from this badly, too?  1 KiB is
about the maximum that's sort of safe without sub-block shuffling (and
I'll likely experiment with sub-block order reversal, either if further
tweaks are permitted in PHC, or if yescrypt isn't selected).

> > The problem is most apps and users won't run additional benchmarks to
> > choose the optimal number of threads, and even if they do they'd likely
> > need to be computing the same derived key on an upgraded machine later,
> > where the old thread count would no longer be the most optimal one.
> 
> This depends on the use case, I think.   For FDE or volume encryption, an
> automt datic parameter generator should run, just like Scrypt does today.

Fair enough.

> For authentication servers, these would also be well tuned.

No.  That's uncommon.

With authentication servers, it's usually one thread per hash, and the
number of concurrent threads is equal to the number of concurrently
processed requests from the clients.  It's just higher-level threads or
even separate processes, not those we could have spawned from PHS().

And with non-dedicated servers and especially with VMs we have no
control over the number of threads+processes at all: we don't even know
how many might be running in adjacent VMs.

So we should plan that in the worst circumstances - and that's when high
performance from our code is needed the most - the maximum number of
threads supported in hardware will actually be running concurrently
(perhaps with more waiting to be scheduled by the kernel).

> > Unless I misunderstand something, Argon2d at lowest t_cost only goes
> > through memory once (when filling it), without the extra 33% you
> > mentioned for yescrypt.  So it could have reached TwoCats' speed, but
> > somehow did not.  I guess the intermediate writes to state[] between the
> > two groups of 8 BLAKE2b rounds might hurt even with write-back caches.
> > Are those writes occasionally getting to higher-level caches or RAM?
> 
> I did a few manual tests to see if I could get Argon2d and Yescrypt-2pw-sse
> to run at TwoCat's speed.  I succeeded for the single-thread case, but for
> multiple threads, the 1KiB block size used by Argon2d and Yescrypt slows
> them down.  I was able to slow TwoCats down similarly by useing a 1KiB
> block size.

OK.  Somehow I haven't found larger block sizes to be much faster for
yescrypt.  IIRC, it was a bit faster at 2 KiB, and slower at 4 KiB and
more.  I guess that's because I'm already using 8 KiB for the S-boxes.

Anyway, larger block sizes would be problematic for TMTO and memory
latency dependency.

> To get Yescrypt there, I commented out the multiplies in the PWX
> transform.  The fact that this runs as fast as TwoCats is impressive, given
> that Yescrypt was doing 33% more I/O operations.  It looks like even with 2
> rounds instead of 6, Yescrypt-2pw-sse is still computation time bound.

I think there are times when it's computation time bound, and there are
times when it's memory bound, depending on prefetch and such.

> To get Argon2d-sse there, I commented out half of their 16 reduced Blake2b
> rounds.  It seems Argon2d is also computation time bound on this machine.

I guess it's similar to what I said above: it varies over time.

Also, when you commented out half of Argon2d's BLAKE2b rounds, I guess you
removed the temporary writes to state[].  If these were wasting any
memory bandwidth before, they no longer would after your changes.

Obviously, it's not a change that could be acceptable outside of an
experiment like this.

> > > This would enhance Argon2d's TMTO
> > > defense and Yescrypt could probably not run the second loop at all when
> > > t_cost == 0.  That would make Yescrypt-2pw-sse nearly as fast as TwoCats
> > > when running with enough threads.
> >
> > Yes, perhaps.  It's a pity that TwoCats' TMTO wasn't studied by the
> > Argon team.  Maybe we should have made TwoCats a finalist just for that
> > privilege.  Then we would have greater confidence about your approach.
> 
> It's not too late to study the distance-cubed distribution (or something
> similar).  The current Argon2d distribution is on the weak side.

I agree.

Alexander

Powered by blists - more mailing lists