> While SipHash is extremely fast for a cryptographically secure function, > it is likely a tiny bit slower than the insecure jhash, and so replacements > will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on whether or not the > difference in speed is negligible and whether or not the current jhash usage > poses a real security risk. To quantify that, jhash is 27 instructions per 12 bytes of input, with a dependency path length of 13 instructions. (24/12 in __jash_mix, plus 3/1 for adding the input to the state.) The final add + __jhash_final is 24 instructions with a path length of 15, which is close enough for this handwaving. Call it 18n instructions and 8n cycles for 8n bytes. SipHash (on a 64-bit machine) is 14 instructions with a dependency path length of 4 *per round*. Two rounds per 8 bytes, plus plus two adds and one cycle per input word, plus four rounds to finish makes 30n+46 instructions and 9n+16 cycles for 8n bytes. So *if* you have a 64-bit 4-way superscalar machine, it's not that much slower once it gets going, but the four-round finalization is quite noticeable for short inputs. For typical kernel input lengths "within a factor of 2" is probably more accurate than "a tiny bit". You lose a factor of 2 if you machine is 2-way or non-superscalar, and a second factor of 2 if it's a 32-bit machine. I mention this because there are a lot of home routers and other netwoek appliances running Linux on 32-bit ARM and MIPS processors. For those, it's a factor of *eight*, which is a lot more than "a tiny bit". The real killer is if you don't have enough registers; SipHash performs horribly on i386 because it uses more state than i386 has registers. (If i386 performance is desired, you might ask Jean-Philippe for some rotate constants for a 32-bit variant with 64 bits of key. Note that SipHash's security proof requires that key length + input length is strictly less than the state size, so for a 4x32-bit variant, while you could stretch the key length a little, you'd have a hard limit at 95 bits.) A second point, the final XOR in SipHash is either a (very minor) design mistake, or an opportunity for optimization, depending on how you look at it. Look at the end of the function: >+ SIPROUND; >+ SIPROUND; >+ return (v0 ^ v1) ^ (v2 ^ v3); Expanding that out, you get: + v0 += v1; v1 = rol64(v1, 13); v1 ^= v0; v0 = rol64(v0, 32); + v2 += v3; v3 = rol64(v3, 16); v3 ^= v2; + v0 += v3; v3 = rol64(v3, 21); v3 ^= v0; + v2 += v1; v1 = rol64(v1, 17); v1 ^= v2; v2 = rol64(v2, 32); + return v0 ^ v1 ^ v2 ^ v3; Since the final XOR includes both v0 and v3, it's undoing the "v3 ^= v0" two lines earlier, so the value of v0 doesn't matter after its XOR into v1 on line one. The final SIPROUND and return can then be optimized to + v0 += v1; v1 = rol64(v1, 13); v1 ^= v0; + v2 += v3; v3 = rol64(v3, 16); v3 ^= v2; + v3 = rol64(v3, 21); + v2 += v1; v1 = rol64(v1, 17); v1 ^= v2; v2 = rol64(v2, 32); + return v1 ^ v2 ^ v3; A 32-bit implementation could further tweak the 4 instructions of v1 ^= v2; v2 = rol64(v2, 32); v1 ^= v2; gcc 6.2.1 -O3 compiles it to basically: v1.low ^= v2.low; v1.high ^= v2.high; v1.low ^= v2.high; v1.high ^= v2.low; but it could be written as: v2.low ^= v2.high; v1.low ^= v2.low; v1.high ^= v2.low; Alternatively, if it's for private use only (key not shared with other systems), a slightly stronger variant would "return v1 ^ v3;". (The final swap of v2 is dead code, but a compiler can spot that easily.) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
