It looks like the 0 return value for _SC_LEVEL1_DCACHE_LINESIZE is not a 1-off problem with PPC. It appears Glibc regularly returns 0 instead of failure. Also see https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=sysdeps/posix/sysconf.c.
We were OK before the change. The difference now is, we expect all Glibc queries to misbehave
Perforance increases significantly, but there's still room for improvement. Even OpenSSL's numbers are relatively dull. We expect Power8's SHA-256 to be somewhere between 2 to 8 cpb but we are not hitting them.
SHA-256, GCC112 (ppc64-le): C++ 23.43, Power8 13.24 cpb (+ 110 MiB/s)
SHA-256, GCC119 (ppc64-be): C++ 10.16, Power8 9.74 cpb (+ 50 MiB/s)
SHA-512, GCC112 (ppc64-le): C++ 14.00, Power8 9.25 cpb (+ 150 MiB/s)
SHA-512, GCC119 (ppc64-be): C++ 21.05, Power8 6.17 cpb (+ 450 MiB/s)
This one should have been fixed before the Crypto++ 6.1 release. Its no big deal, however. Power8 accelerated SHA-256 is 1.5x to 2x slower than straight C++. SHA-512 may be better, but the implementation is not ready to performance test.
If CRYPTOPP_GETAUXV_AVAILABLE is undefined, getauxval function is
defined to return 0 however AT_HWCAP and AT_HWCAP2 are not defined so
compilation on toolchain without getauxval and these variables such as
uclibc-ng will fail.
Signed-off-by: Fabrice Fontaine <fontaine.fabrice@gmail.com>
The commit also adds an assert on memcpy_s pointers. GCC 8 claims the pointers are the same. We think it is a spurious finding. The assert never fired during test.
The ALTIVEC function required an inline declaration. Lack of inline caused the self test failure. Two NEON functions needed the same. We also cleaned up constants in unnamed namespaces
This is a convention that binary compatibity uses one number.
Using that, it's possible to have bugfixes releases (patchlevel
incremented) and enhancement release (minor incremented with no
public interface removed).
Here is more information about convention
https://autotools.io/libtool/version.html
(libtool isn't relevant to this project, but the explanation hold)
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart@gmail.com>
The code below was flagged by undefined behavior santizier under GCC 8. The offender was the doubling at "r4 = vec_add(r4, r4)". R4 is rcon and an unsigned type. It depends on integer wrap but GCC is generating code that is being flagged for signed overflow. GCC 7 and below is OK.
for (unsigned int i=0; i<8; ++i)
{
r1 = Rijndael_Subkey_POWER8(r1, r4, r5);
r4 = vec_add(r4, r4);
skptr = IncrementPointerAndStore(r1, skptr);
}
// Final two rounds using table lookup
...
Jeffrey Walton
rocksonhead
Fabrice Fontaine
Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)