Do we need an unsigned multiplyHigh?

Andrew Haley aph at redhat.com
Mon Sep 25 17:48:37 UTC 2017


On 25/09/17 18:21, Adam Petcher wrote:
> I agree that an unsigned multiplyHigh would be useful for crypto 
> purposes, and we should consider adding it. Of course, I would much 
> rather have multiply operations that return both 64-bit parts of the 
> result, but that is going to be hard to do well without value types. So 
> it would be nice to have something like this in the meantime.

I take your point, but it won't be excruciatingly difficult for the C2
compiler to turn the multiply operations into a single one, if the CPU
can do that.  From what I've seen recently, though, on non-x86 it's
common for the two halves of the result to be calculated by separate
instructions.

> If we are going to add this operation, it should probably be added
> along with an intrinsic. I think the Java code can simply factor out
> the else branch from the existing multiplyHigh code. This way,
> unsignedMultiplyHigh will be at least as fast as multiplyHigh,
> whether the intrinsic implementation is available or not.

Sure.  I can do that.

> If possible, the implementation of this operation should not branch on 
> either operand. This would make it more widely useful for constant-time 
> crypto implementations. Though this property would need to go into the 
> spec in order for constant-time crypto code to use this method, and I 
> don't know how reasonable it is to put something like this in the spec.

OK.  I can do it so that there are no branches in the Java.  The Java
code for signed multiplyHigh has some data-dependent branches in an
attempt to speed it up, though.  I don't know how effective they are,
and I could have a look at taking them out.

> Side note: at the moment, I am using signed arithmetic in prototypes for 
> Poly1305, X25519, and EdDSA, partially due to lack of support for 
> unsigned operations like this one. I don't think having 
> unsignedMultiplyHigh would, on its own, convince me to use an unsigned 
> representation, but the forces are different for each 
> algorithm/implementation.

Sure.  I don't think it really matters from a performance point of
view which you use, given intrinsics for both.

-- 
Andrew Haley
Java Platform Lead Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671


More information about the security-dev mailing list