Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 21:55:51 +0100 From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> To: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> Cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>, "Daniel J . Bernstein" <djb@...yp.to>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] siphash: add cryptographically secure hashtable function Hey Tom, Just following up on what I mentioned in my last email... On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote: > I think your suggestion for (2) will contribute to further > optimizations for (1). In v2, I had another patch in there adding > siphash_1word, siphash_2words, etc, like jhash, but I implemented it > by taking u32 variables and then just concatenating these into a > buffer and passing them to the main siphash function. I removed it > from v3 because I thought that these kind of missed the whole point. > In particular: > > a) siphash24_1word, siphash24_2words, siphash24_3words, etc should > take u64, not u32, since that's what siphash operates on natively I implemented these here: https://git.zx2c4.com/linux-dev/commit/?h=siphash&id=4652b6f3643bdba217e2194d89661348bbac48a0 This will be part of the next version of the series I submit. It's not immediately clear that using it is strictly faster than the struct trick though. However, I'm not yet sure why this would be. Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.