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

[Rik van Riel]

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:
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂPentium Core 2ÂÂIvy
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ4ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂDuoÂÂÂÂÂBridge
> > SipHash-2-4ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ38.9ÂÂÂÂÂ8.3ÂÂÂÂÂ5.8
> > HalfSipHash-2-4ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ12.7ÂÂÂÂÂ4.5ÂÂÂÂÂ3.2
> > MD5ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ8.3ÂÂÂÂÂ5.7ÂÂÂÂÂ4.7
> 
> 
> 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: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part