[llvm-dev] [RFC] carry-less multiplication instruction

Thu Jul 9 07:41:23 PDT 2020

(As per IRC discussion)

I understand that the carry-less multiplication algorithm has it's uses
since/and it is implemented as an instruction in many architectures
and that adding it as a general-purpose intrinsic will allow us
to drop target-specific intrinsics as by-product.

What i do *NOT* understand is: what is the actual/main goal/driving
factor of adding an LLVM intrinsic for it?

The use that was mentioned is crypto, and i'm personally not really
registering anything else. Am i just misreading it?
The crypto use-case doesn't make sense to me, because
as of this moment LLVM "explicitly" has zero constant-time
guarantees for LLVM IR instructions/intrinsics.

I feel like it's a really important question.
If there isn't interest in crypto/constant-time here, i think it would
be best to explicitly state so. If there is, i think it may be good
to hear from Chandler (who IIRC is driving some constant-time
work for C++/LLVM, that is not yet widely public)

Roman

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 7:23 PM Steve (Numerics) Canon via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> FWIW, this seems like a no-brainer to me (as llvm.experimental initially), assuming that it can be designed in such a way that it would eliminate the need for intrinsics on at least two targets (I think it should be possible to do so, with a small amount of back-end work).
>
> – Steve
>
> On Jul 5, 2020, at 5:18 AM, Shawn Landden via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Carry-less multiplication[1] instructions exist (at least optionally) on many architectures: armv8, RISC-V, x86_64, POWER, SPARC, C64x, and possibly more.
>
> This proposal is to add a llvm.clmul instruction. Or if that is contentious, llvm.experimental.bitmanip.clmul instruction. It takes two integer operands of the same width, and returns an integer with twice the width of the operands. (Is there a good reason to make these the same width, as all the other operations do even when it doesn’t really make sense for the mathematical operation–like multiplication or ctpop/ctlz/cttz?)
>
> If the CPU does not have a dedication clmul operation, it can be lowered to regular multiplication, by using holes to avoid carrys.
>
> ==Where is clmul used?==
>
> While somewhat specialized, the RISC-V manual documents many uses: [2]
>
> The classic applications forclmulare Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) [11, 26]
>
> and Galois/CounterMode (GCM), but more applications exist, including the following examples.There are obvious applications in hashing and pseudo random number generations. For exam-ple, it has been reported that hashes based on carry-less multiplications can outperform Google’sCityHash [17].
>
> clmulof a number with itself inserts zeroes between each input bit. This can be useful for generatingMorton code [23].
>
> clmulof a number with -1 calculates the prefix XOR operation. This can be useful for decodinggray codes.Another application of XOR prefix sums calculated withclmulis branchless tracking of quotedstrings in high-performance parsers. [16]
>
> Carry-less multiply can also be used to implement Erasure code efficiently. [14]
>
> ==clmul lowering without hardware support==
> A 8x8=>16 clmul can also be lowered to a 32x32=>64 multiplication when there is no specialized instruction (also 15x15=>30, to a 60x60=>120, or if bitreverse is available 16x16=>32 to TWO 64x64=>64 multiplications)[3].
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry-less_product
> [2] (page 30) https://raw.githubusercontent.com/riscv/riscv-bitmanip/master/bitmanip-0.92.pdf
> [3] https://www.bearssl.org/constanttime.html
>
>
>
> (First posted to discord
>
> --
> Shawn Landden
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev