Search Results

Search found 27 results on 2 pages for 'psuedocode'.

Page 2/2 | < Previous Page | 1 2 

• Accidental Complexity in OpenSSL HMAC functions

  - by Hassan Syed

  SSL Documentation Analaysis This question is pertaining the usage of the HMAC routines in OpenSSL. Since Openssl documentation is a tad on the weak side in certain areas, profiling has revealed that using the: unsigned char *HMAC(const EVP_MD *evp_md, const void *key, int key_len, const unsigned char *d, int n, unsigned char *md, unsigned int *md_len); From here, shows 40% of my library runtime is devoted to creating and taking down **HMAC_CTX's behind the scenes. There are also two additional function to create and destroy a HMAC_CTX explicetly: HMAC_CTX_init() initialises a HMAC_CTX before first use. It must be called. HMAC_CTX_cleanup() erases the key and other data from the HMAC_CTX and releases any associated resources. It must be called when an HMAC_CTX is no longer required. These two function calls are prefixed with: The following functions may be used if the message is not completely stored in memory My data fits entirely in memory, so I choose the HMAC function -- the one whose signature is shown above. The context, as described by the man page, is made use of by using the following two functions: HMAC_Update() can be called repeatedly with chunks of the message to be authenticated (len bytes at data). HMAC_Final() places the message authentication code in md, which must have space for the hash function output. The Scope of the Application My application generates a authentic (HMAC, which is also used a nonce), CBC-BF encrypted protocol buffer string. The code will be interfaced with various web-servers and frameworks Windows / Linux as OS, nginx, Apache and IIS as webservers and Python / .NET and C++ web-server filters. The description above should clarify that the library needs to be thread safe, and potentially have resumeable processing state -- i.e., lightweight threads sharing a OS thread (which might leave thread local memory out of the picture). The Question How do I get rid of the 40% overhead on each invocation in a (1) thread-safe / (2) resume-able state way ? (2) is optional since I have all of the source-data present in one go, and can make sure a digest is created in place without relinquishing control of the thread mid-digest-creation. So, (1) can probably be done using thread local memory -- but how do I resuse the CTX's ? does the HMAC_final() call make the CTX reusable ?. (2) optional: in this case I would have to create a pool of CTX's. (3) how does the HMAC function do this ? does it create a CTX in the scope of the function call and destroy it ? Psuedocode and commentary will be useful.

  Read the article

• Testing a Non-blocking Queue

  - by jsw

  I've ported the non-blocking queue psuedocode here to C#. The code below is meant as a near verbatim copy of the paper. What approach would you take to test the implementation? Note: I'm running in VS2010 so I don't have CHESS support yet. using System.Threading; #pragma warning disable 0420 namespace ConcurrentCollections { class QueueNodePointer<T> { internal QueueNode<T> ptr; internal QueueNodePointer() : this(null) { } internal QueueNodePointer(QueueNode<T> ptr) { this.ptr = ptr; } } class QueueNode<T> { internal T value; internal QueueNodePointer<T> next; internal QueueNode() : this(default(T)) { } internal QueueNode(T value) { this.value = value; this.next = new QueueNodePointer<T>(); } } public class ConcurrentQueue<T> { private volatile int count = 0; private QueueNodePointer<T> qhead = new QueueNodePointer<T>(); private QueueNodePointer<T> qtail = new QueueNodePointer<T>(); public ConcurrentQueue() { var node = new QueueNode<T>(); node.next.ptr = null; this.qhead.ptr = this.qtail.ptr = node; } public int Count { get { return this.count; } } public void Enqueue(T value) { var node = new QueueNode<T>(value); node.next.ptr = null; QueueNodePointer<T> tail; QueueNodePointer<T> next; while (true) { tail = this.qtail; next = tail.ptr.next; if (tail == this.qtail) { if (next.ptr == null) { var newtail = new QueueNodePointer<T>(node); if (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref tail.ptr.next, newtail, next) == next) { Interlocked.Increment(ref this.count); break; } else { Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref this.qtail, new QueueNodePointer<T>(next.ptr), tail); } } } } Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref this.qtail, new QueueNodePointer<T>(node), tail); } public T Dequeue() { T value; while (true) { var head = this.qhead; var tail = this.qtail; var next = head.ptr.next; if (head == this.qhead) { if (head.ptr == tail.ptr) { if (next.ptr == null) { return default(T); } Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref this.qtail, new QueueNodePointer<T>(next.ptr), tail); } else { value = next.ptr.value; var newhead = new QueueNodePointer<T>(next.ptr); if (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref this.qhead, newhead, head) == head) { Interlocked.Decrement(ref this.count); break; } } } } return value; } } } #pragma warning restore 0420

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2