On 01/10/2017 12:31 PM, Richard Levitte wrote:
> Benjamin Kaduk <bka...@akamai.com> skrev: (10 januari 2017 18:48:32 CET)
>> On 01/09/2017 10:05 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>> Should we move to using SIPHash for the default string hashing
>>> function in OpenSSL?  It’s now in the kernel
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/1/9/619
>> Heck, yes!
>> -Ben
> I fail to see what that would give us. OPENSSL_LH_strhash() is used to get a 
> reasonable index for LHASH entries. Also SIPhash gives at least 64 bits 
> results, do we really expect to see large enough hash tables to warrant that? 

We don't need to use the full output width of a good hash function.

My main point is, "why would we want to ignore the last 20 years of
advancement in hash function research?"  Section 7 of the siphash paper
(https://131002.net/siphash/siphash.pdf) explicitly talks about using it
for hash tables, including using hash table indices H(m) mod l.

openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev

Reply via email to