Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Switch "crypto" implementation to Python #457

Draft
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jlaine
Copy link
Contributor

@jlaine jlaine commented Jan 16, 2024

This simplifies the build process and avoids needing to ship a vendor'd OpenSSL.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Jan 16, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (a6d91fb) to head (427ddf2).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main      #457   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           25        26    +1     
  Lines         4976      5041   +65     
=========================================
+ Hits          4976      5041   +65     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@jlaine
Copy link
Contributor Author

jlaine commented Jan 23, 2024

Initial testing suggest a 10x slowdown of packet protection compared to the current C code.

@jlaine jlaine force-pushed the python-crypto branch 2 times, most recently from e28fb8a to eb3a5f2 Compare January 23, 2024 19:05
@rthalley
Copy link
Contributor

I haven't tried measuring it yet. My prior experience is that cryptography is pretty fast, and I'm wondering if the header protection part might be the slow thing. If it were, it might be possible to do the crypto with cryptography and then do the masking with a tiny bit of C code.

@jlaine
Copy link
Contributor Author

jlaine commented Feb 27, 2024

I haven't tried measuring it yet. My prior experience is that cryptography is pretty fast, and I'm wondering if the header protection part might be the slow thing. If it were, it might be possible to do the crypto with cryptography and then do the masking with a tiny bit of C code.

AFAICT it's the actual crypto code unfortunately that is slower.

@rthalley
Copy link
Contributor

Can you say how you are benchmarking? I'm guessing I'm doing something wrong, but I'm testing by using the example client to pull 20MiB from nginx, and while it is slower it's not too bad, only around 1.074 times the non-cryptography version.

Regular aioquic (main from your branch with python-crypto):

2024-02-27 08:04:13,412 INFO client Response received for GET /foo.bin : 20971520 bytes in 0.4 s (428.916 Mbps)
2024-02-27 08:04:13,414 INFO quic [1da750bf1e625c3a] Connection close sent (code 0x100, reason )
python examples/http3_client.py https://localhost:8080/foo.bin  0.46s user 0.11s system 84% cpu 0.674 total

Your python-crypto branch:

024-02-27 08:12:30,026 INFO client Response received for GET /foo.bin : 20971520 bytes in 0.4 s (389.185 Mbps)
2024-02-27 08:12:30,028 INFO quic [254cea9a35deb3ff] Connection close sent (code 0x100, reason )
python examples/http3_client.py https://localhost:8080/foo.bin  0.41s user 0.07s system 66% cpu 0.724 total

@jlaine
Copy link
Contributor Author

jlaine commented Feb 27, 2024

Here is what I use:

import binascii
import time

from aioquic.quic.crypto import CryptoPair

from tests.test_crypto import (
    LONG_CLIENT_PACKET_NUMBER,
    LONG_CLIENT_PLAIN_HEADER,
    LONG_CLIENT_PLAIN_PAYLOAD,
    PROTOCOL_VERSION,
)

pair = CryptoPair()
pair.setup_initial(
    cid=binascii.unhexlify("8394c8f03e515708"),
    is_client=True,
    version=PROTOCOL_VERSION,
)
start = time.time()
for i in range(100000):
    pair.encrypt_packet(
        LONG_CLIENT_PLAIN_HEADER,
        LONG_CLIENT_PLAIN_PAYLOAD,
        LONG_CLIENT_PACKET_NUMBER,
    )
elapsed = time.time() - start
print(elapsed)

A typical run for me puts the C code at about 70ms and the Python code at around 800ms.

Notes:

  • Make sure you purge your build directory when switching to the python-crypto branch, otherwise you will still have the C version in the form of a .so :)
  • The main branch of cryptography may perform differently as more code has been moved to rust.
  • ChaCha20 is going to regress even further, but there is a WIP patch which helps: ChaCha20 API does not allow updating the nonce pyca/cryptography#10193

@rthalley
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah, I discovered the need to purge while I was benchmarking. The timings I reported are after making sure I was testing in clean setups.

@rthalley
Copy link
Contributor

And of course both of our testing could be accurate, as you're testing just the crypto whereas I'm testing what the overall effect in typical use is.

@jlaine
Copy link
Contributor Author

jlaine commented May 19, 2024

I wish cryptography 43 were already out, preferably featuring:

pyca/cryptography#10437

As things currently stand, the build of the C code has broken again through no change of our own:

https://github.com/jlaine/aioquic/actions/runs/9150448224

@jlaine jlaine force-pushed the python-crypto branch 2 times, most recently from b615608 to 157e70c Compare May 19, 2024 21:08
This simplifies the build process and avoids needing to ship a vendor'd
OpenSSL.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants