Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:126220
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 21:54:31 +0100
To: Hans Henrik Bergan <hans@loltek.net>
Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] BLAKE3 hash redux
In-Reply-To: <CAK7R4awkLmRVZ_nGJfae6P-rgLf2o4WYjv+S4iCLZC5q-YEF3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK7R4awkLmRVZ_nGJfae6P-rgLf2o4WYjv+S4iCLZC5q-YEF3g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <995b9de75fc45af9b4afc327977b3ed8@bastelstu.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?=)

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