phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] optimized Parallel

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1616063284.109721.1432365471740.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxuslxltgw07.lxa.perfora.net>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 02:17:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steve Thomas <steve@...tu.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] optimized Parallel

> On May 22, 2015 at 8:00 PM Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't know why Steve isn't posting this in here himself, but he
> tweeted a few days ago that he produced an optimized implementation of
> Parallel with SHA-256 as the underlying hash function. (This is
> slightly different from the PHC submission, which uses SHA-512, but
> since Parallel is in the same category with PBKDF2, it's OK - not a
> tweak. The submission does mention that the hash function can be
> changed.)
>

I was going to post this here when it's fully done with both SHA256 and SHA512.
This currently just calculates the work value. You need to do key =
hash(hash(salt) || password), parallelHash = hash(hash(work || key)), and
upgrades. I plan on having Parallel-SHA256 fully done soon and Parallel-SHA512
by Monday (I'm lazy it's just copy paste and a few changes). I also plan on
doing a slightly less optimized version that compiles to a lot smaller
executable.

I never meant for Parallel to only use SHA512, but I did clarify this before the
deadline for tweaks.

> Steve - why did you choose to switch to SHA-256 for this, though?
>

I already had a working SIMD version of SHA256.

> <Sc00bzT> Finally got around to finishing an optimized version of Parallel.
> I'm getting 6.2 MH/s SHA256 on a Q9300:
> https://github.com/Sc00bz/Parallel
>
> <@Sc00bzT> Oh right I still need to get around to writing the make file. Also
> it takes 12 CPU core-minutes to compile in VS2013
>
> The code does indeed look optimized: includes interleaving and SIMD, all
> the way up to AVX-512 with ternary logic intrinsics.
>

VS2013 takes 12 CPU-minutes but GCC 4.9.2 is fast. I think VS2013 is slow
because it poorly handles inlining a thousand functions passed into template
functions.

I added support for Linux just grab a copy and run make. The resulting
executable is large because it detects at run time what SIMD version to run with
your CPU.

Sadly I haven't tested if AVX512 even compiles since nothing supports it. Well
GCC 5.1 does but I'm not going to attempt compiling GCC again. It's a nightmare.

P.S. It would be nice if someone could benchmark the AVX broadcast versions.
Just change PARALLEL_SHA256_FUNC_{AVX,AVX_XOP,AVX2,AVX2_XOP,AVX512} to
PARALLEL_SHA256_FUNC_{AVX,AVX_XOP,AVX2,AVX2_XOP,AVX512}_B. My guess is it's
slower which is why it's not used. Actually I'll just make a benchmark version
to run all versions you CPU can handle. So I guess don't worry about it :).