lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: HalfSipHash Acceptable Usage
Hi Eric,

I computed performance numbers for both 32-bit and 64-bit using the
actual functions in which talking about replacing MD5 with SipHash.
The basic harness is here [1] if you're curious. SipHash was a pretty
clear winner for both cases.

x86_64:
[ 1.714302] secure_tcpv6_sequence_number_md5# cycles: 102373398
[ 1.747685] secure_tcp_sequence_number_md5# cycles: 92042258
[ 1.773522] secure_tcpv6_sequence_number_siphash# cycles: 70786533
[ 1.798701] secure_tcp_sequence_number_siphash# cycles: 68941043

x86:
[ 1.635749] secure_tcpv6_sequence_number_md5# cycles: 106016335
[ 1.670259] secure_tcp_sequence_number_md5# cycles: 95670512
[ 1.708387] secure_tcpv6_sequence_number_siphash# cycles: 105988635
[ 1.740264] secure_tcp_sequence_number_siphash# cycles: 88225395

>>> 102373398 > 70786533
True
>>> 92042258 > 68941043
True
>>> 106016335 > 105988635
True
>>> 95670512 > 88225395
True

While MD5 is probably faster for some kind of large-data
cycles-per-byte, due to its 64-byte internal state, SipHash -- the
"Sip" part standing "Short Input PRF" -- is fast for shorter inputs.
In practice with the functions we're talking about replacing, there's
no need to hash 64-bytes. So, SipHash comes out faster and more
secure.

I also haven't begun to look focusedly at the assembly my SipHash
implemention is generating, which means there's still window for even
more performance improvements.

Jason


[1] https://git.zx2c4.com/linux-dev/tree/net/core/secure_seq.c?h=siphash-bench#n194

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-21 15:44    [W:0.088 / U:0.384 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site