Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: HalfSipHash Acceptable Usage

[Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1167 bytes --]

On Wed, 2016-12-21 at 07:56 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-12-21 at 15:42 +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> George said :
> 
> > Cycles per byte on 1024 bytes of data:
> >                       Pentium Core 2  Ivy
> >                       4       Duo     Bridge
> > SipHash-2-4           38.9     8.3     5.8
> > HalfSipHash-2-4       12.7     4.5     3.2
> > MD5                    8.3     5.7     4.7
> 
> 
> That really was for 1024 bytes blocks, so pretty much useless for our
> discussion ?
> 
> Reading your numbers last week, I thought SipHash was faster, but
> George
> numbers are giving the opposite impression.
> 
> I do not have a P4 to make tests, so I only can trust you or George.

Does anybody still have a P4?

If they do, they're probably better off replacing
it with an Atom. The reduced power bills will pay
for replacing that P4 within a year or two.

In short, I am not sure how important the P4
performance numbers are, especially if we can
improve security for everybody else...

-- 
All Rights Reversed.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]