Everything
php
Learn Community Releases The PHP Project
Home » Project » Newsgroups » php.internals » BLAKE3 hash redux »

BLAKE3 hash redux

php.internals

Hans Henrik Bergan

1 year ago
Can we add the BLAKE3 hash? Created a PR here: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/13194 Created a RFC draft here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/blake3 BLAKE3 is a cryptographic hash function based on the SHA3-finalist BLAKE, offering SHA3-256-like security at much higher speed. Benchmarks from /ext/hash/bench.php highlight BLAKE3's performance: it is over four times faster than SHA3-256 on AMD Ryzen 9 7950x: https://wiki.php.net/_detail/rfc/output_5_.png

Tim Düsterhus

1 year ago
Hi (Hans, apologies for the duplicate copy, I accidentally did not send the first reply to the list) Am 2025-01-24 20:39, schrieb Hans Henrik Bergan:
> Can we add the BLAKE3 hash? > > Created a PR here: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/13194 > Created a RFC draft here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/blake3 > > BLAKE3 is a cryptographic hash function based on the SHA3-finalist > BLAKE, offering SHA3-256-like security at much higher speed. > Benchmarks from /ext/hash/bench.php highlight BLAKE3's performance: it > is over four times faster than SHA3-256 on AMD Ryzen 9 7950x: > https://wiki.php.net/_detail/rfc/output_5_.png
Thank you for your RFC. I'm a little confused by the benchmark results. According to https://www.amd.com/de/products/processors/desktops/ryzen/7000-series/amd-ryzen-9-7950x.html, the Ryzen 9 7950x should support SHA-NI, which should make SHA-256 much faster than SHA-1. On my i7-1365U I get SHA-256 results that are competitive with BLAKE3 and with SHA-256 being a well-established algorithm, the benefit of having BLAKE3 becomes much smaller when also considering that will likely remain under much less scrunity of the cryptographic community. crc32b 0.001059 crc32 0.001060 crc32c 0.001068 xxh3 0.001888 xxh128 0.001915 xxh64 0.002003 murmur3f 0.003031 xxh32 0.003147 murmur3c 0.003590 murmur3a 0.006133 adler32 0.007285 blake3 0.010877 sha224 0.013217 sha256 0.013227 md4 0.017892 fnv164 0.021882 fnv132 0.021941 fnv1a32 0.021953 fnv1a64 0.021960 sha1 0.026227 joaat 0.027386 tiger128,3 0.028267 tiger160,3 0.028301 tiger192,3 0.028335 md5 0.028426 tiger128,4 0.037212 tiger160,4 0.037262 tiger192,4 0.037312 ripemd128 0.037685 ripemd256 0.037950 sha3-224 0.048985 sha384 0.050335 sha512/256 0.050597 sha512 0.050732 sha512/224 0.050744 sha3-256 0.052112 haval160,3 0.059909 haval128,3 0.059922 haval224,3 0.059940 haval256,3 0.060034 haval192,3 0.060077 ripemd320 0.062434 ripemd160 0.062976 sha3-384 0.064828 haval128,4 0.082339 haval192,4 0.082374 haval160,4 0.082414 haval224,4 0.082511 haval256,4 0.082513 sha3-512 0.093178 haval128,5 0.104438 haval160,5 0.104576 haval256,5 0.104610 haval192,5 0.104631 haval224,5 0.104929 whirlpool 0.108009 gost 0.243599 gost-crypto 0.243799 snefru 0.595979 snefru256 0.596615 md2 1.752960 Is your benchmark perhaps not reflecting the latest changes with PHP 8.4? SHA-NI support was added in https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/15152. As for the RFC itself: I suggest to already add the (closed) voting doodle to the proposed voting choices section. The way the section is currently worded doesn't make sense, because it implies two distinct votes. Other than the above, I don't have a strong opinion either about the RFC. I don't see much benefit of having it, but also not much against. Best regards Tim Düsterhus

Hans Henrik Bergan

1 year ago
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 at 21:54, Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> wrote:
> > Hi > > (Hans, apologies for the duplicate copy, I accidentally did not send the > first reply to the list) > > Am 2025-01-24 20:39, schrieb Hans Henrik Bergan: > > Can we add the BLAKE3 hash? > > > > Created a PR here: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/13194 > > Created a RFC draft here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/blake3 > > > > BLAKE3 is a cryptographic hash function based on the SHA3-finalist > > BLAKE, offering SHA3-256-like security at much higher speed. > > Benchmarks from /ext/hash/bench.php highlight BLAKE3's performance: it > > is over four times faster than SHA3-256 on AMD Ryzen 9 7950x: > > https://wiki.php.net/_detail/rfc/output_5_.png > > Thank you for your RFC. I'm a little confused by the benchmark results. > According to > https://www.amd.com/de/products/processors/desktops/ryzen/7000-series/amd-ryzen-9-7950x.html, > the Ryzen 9 7950x should support SHA-NI, which should make SHA-256 much > faster than SHA-1. On my i7-1365U I get SHA-256 results that are > competitive with BLAKE3 and with SHA-256 being a well-established > algorithm, the benefit of having BLAKE3 becomes much smaller when also > considering that will likely remain under much less scrunity of the > cryptographic community.
BLAKE3 keeping up with dedicated SHA CPU instructions (i.e SHA-NI) is impressive. ARM is getting more and more common, and I don't think ARM has SHA instructions (yet?) tho. BLAKE3 offers security superior to SHA2 and comparable to SHA3, among the 3, only SHA2 is vulnerable to length extension attacks.
> blake3 0.010877 > sha3-256 0.052112
On your system, it seems BLAKE3 is 4.7 times (almost 5 times?) faster than sha3-256, interesting.
> Is your benchmark perhaps not reflecting the latest changes with PHP > 8.4? SHA-NI support was added in > https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/15152.
ah yes, the benchmarks is from commit https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/13194/commits/187c8e96383bf3b792c45a4769c6f795db0e86a6 dating to 19 january 2024 (the benchmark is in the commit message), 6 months prior to https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/15152 ... I tried getting BLAKE3 added back in january 2024, but ran out of steam.
> As for the RFC itself: I suggest to already add the (closed) voting > doodle to the proposed voting choices section. The way the section is > currently worded doesn't make sense, because it implies two distinct > votes.
like this I guess: <doodle title="Integrate BLAKE3?" auth="divinity76" voteType="single" closed="true"> * Yes * No </doodle> added.

Tim Düsterhus

1 year ago
Hi Am 2025-01-24 22:37, schrieb Hans Henrik Bergan:
> BLAKE3 keeping up with dedicated SHA CPU instructions (i.e SHA-NI) is > impressive.
I would assume that that's the AVX2 implementation (my CPU can't AVX512), which makes it less impressive.
> ARM is getting more and more common, and I don't think ARM has SHA > instructions (yet?) tho.
The ARM architecture has them, but PHP does not yet make use of them. This is mainly due to me being unable to test the integration, due to lacking an appropriate system. libcperciva where I've taken the SHA-NI implementation from also includes the ARM implementation and I checked with the author regarding the necessary attribution as part of the x64 SHA-NI PR: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/15152#issuecomment-2256476578.
>> As for the RFC itself: I suggest to already add the (closed) voting >> doodle to the proposed voting choices section. The way the section is >> currently worded doesn't make sense, because it implies two distinct >> votes. > > like this I guess: >
Yes. Ideally mention above that it requires a "2/3 majority" (as with any other RFC, but good to spell it out explicitly). Best regards Tim Düsterhus

Christoph Becker

1 year ago
On 24.01.2025 at 20:39, Hans Henrik Bergan wrote:
> Can we add the BLAKE3 hash? > > Created a PR here: https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/13194 > Created a RFC draft here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/blake3
I'm *generally* somewhat concerned regarding the amount of code (growth) in ext/hash, which is a bundled extension and such must not rely on external libraries. All this code needs to be maintained by the php-src maintainers, and build by everyone who wants to build php-src, although probably few actually use the less common hash algorithms. Maybe we should consider creating a new PECL/PIE extension, where new algorithms can be added first, and if popular enough, later be moved into ext/hash. And it might be worthwhile to move some of the less useful algorithms to the new PECL/PIE extension. Christoph