I am synthesizing some multiplication units in verilog and I was wondering if you generally get better results in terms of area/power savings if you implement your own CSA using booth encoding when multplying or if you just use the * symbol and let the synthesis tool take care of the problem for you?
Thank you!
Generally, I tend to trust the compiler tools I use and don't fret so much about the results as long as they meet my timing and area budgets.
That said, with multipliers that need to run at fast speeds I find I get better results (in DC, at least) if I create a Verilog module containing the multiply (*) and a retiming register or two, and push down into this module to synthesise it before popping up to toplevel synthesis. It seems as if the compiler gets 'distracted' by other timing paths if you try to do everything at once, so making it focus on a multiplier that you know is going to be tricky seems to help.
You have this question tagged with "FPGA." If your target device is an FPGA then it may be advisable to use FPGA's multiplier megafunction (don't remember what Xilinx calls it these days.)
This way, you will be sure that the tool utilizes the whatever internal hardware structure that you intend to use irrespective of synthesizer tool. You will be sure to get an optimum solution that is also predictable from a timing and latency standpoint.
Additionally, you don't have to test it for all the corner cases, especially important if you are doing signed multiplication and what kind of coding guidelines you follow.
I agree with #Marty in that I would use *. I have previously built my own low power adder structures, which then ran in to problems when the design shifted process/had to be run at a higher frequency. Hard coded architectures like this remove quite a bit of portability from the code.
Using the directives is nice in trials to see the different size (area) of architectures, but I leave the decision to the synthesis tool to make the best call based on the timing constraints and available area. I am not sure how power aware the tools are by default. Previously we ended up getting an extra license which added a lot of power aware knowledge to the synthesis.
Related
I have some FIRRTL and I want to get a critical path / bottleneck analysis of the code so as to maximize the clock rate by minimizing the critical path.
I can write a weighted topological sort myself, but I do not know the weights that I should use for various circuit components as well as for and fanout slowdown.
I have heard the RISC-V grad students speak of running a critical path analysis when optimizing their chips, so the Chisel / RISC-V infrastructure must provide one. I would expect this to be a flag on the firrtl tool, but I see no such flag.
This is normally done through a Synthesis/PnR tool such as Genus/Innovous. While you could look at the FIRRTL/RTL to get a generalization regarding your design, there would be many factors that ultimately effect the timing.
For example, all other things being equal, a 4 combo gate path would run faster than a 5 combo gate path. The issue being where gates are placed, their drive strength (and your power requirements), routing, etc. would likely contribute more towards timing than the gates themselves.
I know that Verilog has an arithmetic add operator. If I'm building an adder, should I make my own or use that? Which will perform better in my processor?
For simulation, the add operator will behave according to the standard and should be fine to use unless you have a reason to simulate a specific adder implementation.
For synthesis, what you get depends on your synthesis tool and final hardware platform. For example, FPGAs usually have dedicated logic for adds and using the Verilog add operator should take advantage of that automatically.
If you need extreme performance on your hardware, it's possible you could do better by using the available primitives directly. Though add is a very common operation and synthesis should be able to handle it well for most use cases.
I recently learned that it is possible to generate C# code at runtime and I would like to put this feature to use. I have code that does some very basic geometric calculations like computing line-plane intersections and I think I could gain some performance benefits by generating specialized code for some of the methods because many of the calculations are performed for the same plane or the same line over and over again. By specializing the code that computes the intersections I think I should be able to gain some performance benefits.
The problem is that I'm not sure where to begin. From reading a few blog posts and browsing MSDN documentation I've come across two possible strategies for generating code at runtime: Expression trees and IL.Emit. Using expression trees seems much easier because there is no need to learn anything about OpCodes and various other MSIL related intricacies but I'm not sure if expression trees are as fast as manually generated MSIL. So are there any suggestions on which method I should go with?
The performance of both is generally same, as expression trees internally are traversed and emitted as IL using the same underlying system functions that you would be using yourself. It is theoretically possible to emit a more efficient IL using low-level functions, but I doubt that there would be any practically important performance gain. That would depend on the task, but I have not come of any practical optimisation of emitted IL, compared to one emitted by expression trees.
I highly suggest getting the tool called ILSpy that reverse-compiles CLR assemblies. With that you can look at the code actually traversing the expression trees and actually emitting IL.
Finally, a caveat. I have used expression trees in a language parser, where function calls are bound to grammar rules that are compiled from a file at runtime. Compiled is a key here. For many problems I came across, when what you want to achieve is known at compile time, then you would not gain much performance by runtime code generation. Some CLR JIT optimizations might be also unavailable to dynamic code. This is only an opinion from my practice, and your domain would be different, but if performance is critical, I would rather look at native code, highly optimized libraries. Some of the work I have done would be snail slow if not using LAPACK/MKL. But that is only a piece of the advice not asked for, so take it with a grain of salt.
If I were in your situation, I would try alternatives from high level to low level, in increasing "needed time & effort" and decreasing reusability order, and I would stop as soon as the performance is good enough for the time being, i.e.:
first, I'd check to see if Math.NET, LAPACK or some similar numeric library already has similar functionality, or I can adapt/extend the code to my needs;
second, I'd try Expression Trees;
third, I'd check Roslyn Project (even though it is in prerelease version);
fourth, I'd think about writing common routines with unsafe C code;
[fifth, I'd think about quitting and starting a new career in a different profession :) ],
and only if none of these work out, would I be so hopeless to try emitting IL at run time.
But perhaps I'm biased against low level approaches; your expertise, experience and point of view might be different.
What are the methods for protecting an Exe file from Reverse Engineering.Many Packers are available to pack an exe file.Such an approach is mentioned in http://c-madeeasy.blogspot.com/2011/07/protecting-your-c-programexe-files-from.html
Is this method efficient?
The only good way to prevent a program from being reverse-engineered ("understood") is to revise its structure to essentially force the opponent into understanding Turing Machines. Essentially what you do is:
take some problem which generally proven to be computationally difficult
synthesize a version of that whose outcome you know; this is generally pretty easy compared to solving a version
make the correct program execution dependent on the correct answer
make the program compute nonsense if the answer is not correct
Now an opponent staring at your code has to figure what the "correct" computation is, by solving algorithmically hard problems. There's tons of NP-hard problems that nobody has solved efficiently in the literature in 40 years; its a pretty good bet if your program depends on one of these, that J. Random Reverse-Engineer won't suddenly be able to solve them.
One generally does this by transforming the original program to obscure its control flow, and/or its dataflow. Some techniques scramble the control flow by converting some control flow into essentially data flow ("jump indirect through this pointer array"), and then implementing data flow algorithms that require precise points-to analysis, which is both provably hard and has proven difficult in practice.
Here's a paper that describes a variety of techniques rather shallowly but its an easy read:
http://www.cs.sjsu.edu/faculty/stamp/students/kundu_deepti.pdf
Here's another that focuses on how to ensure that the obfuscating transformations lead to results that are gauranteed to be computationally hard:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/41135jkqxv9l3xme/
Here's one that surveys a wide variety of control flow transformation methods,
including those that provide levels of gaurantees about security:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g157gxr14m149l13/
This paper obfuscates control flows in binary programs with low overhead:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.167.3773&rank=2
Now, one could go through a lot of trouble to prevent a program from being decompiled. But if the decompiled one was impossible to understand, you simply might not bother; that's the approach I'd take.
If you insist on preventing decompilation, you can attack that by considering what decompilation is intended to accomplish. Decompilation essentially proposes that you can convert each byte of the target program into some piece of code. One way to make that fail, is to ensure that the application can apparently use each byte
as both computer instructions, and as data, even if if does not actually do so, and that the decision to do so is obfuscated by the above kinds of methods. One variation on this is to have lots of conditional branches in the code that are in fact unconditional (using control flow obfuscation methods); the other side of the branch falls into nonsense code that looks valid but branches to crazy places in the existing code. Another variant on this idea is to implement your program as an obfuscated interpreter, and implement the actual functionality as a set of interpreted data.
A fun way to make this fail is to generate code at run time and execute it on the fly; most conventional languages such as C have pretty much no way to represent this.
A program built like this would be difficult to decompile, let alone understand after the fact.
Tools that are claimed to a good job at protecting binary code are listed at:
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/1069/any-comprehensive-solutions-for-binary-code-protection-and-anti-reverse-engineeri
Packing, compressing and any other methods of binary protection will only every serve to hinder or slow reversal of your code, they have never been and never will be 100% secure solutions (though the marketing of some would have you believe that). You basically need to evaluate what sort of level of hacker you are up against, if they are script kids, then any packer that require real effort and skill (ie:those that lack unpacking scripts/programs/tutorials) will deter them. If your facing people with skills and resources, then you can forget about keeping your code safe (as many of the comments say: if the OS can read it to execute it, so can you, it'll just take a while longer). If your concern is not so much your IP but rather the security of something your program does, then you might be better served in redesigning in a manner where it cannot be attack even with the original source (chrome takes this approach).
Decompilation is always possible. The statement
This threat can be eliminated to extend by packing/compressing the
executable(.exe).
on your linked site is a plain lie.
Currently many solutions can be used to protect your application from being anti-compiled. Such as compressing, Obfuscation, Code snippet, etc.
You can looking for a company to help you achieve this.
Such as Nelpeiron, the website is:https://www.nalpeiron.com/
Which can cover many platforms, Windows, Linux, ARM-Linux, Android.
What is more Virbox is also can be taken into consideration:
The website is: https://lm-global.virbox.com/index.html
I recommend is because they have more options to protect your source code, such as import table protection, memory check.
I recently came across the term Polymorphic Code, and was wondering if anyone could suggest a legitimate (i.e. in legal and business appropriate software) reason to use it in a computer program? Links to real world examples would be appreciated!
Before someone answers, telling us all about the benefits of polymorphism in object oriented programming, please read the following definition for polymorphic code (taken from Wikipedia):
"Polymorphic code is code that uses a polymorphic engine to mutate while keeping the original algorithm intact. That is, the code changes itself each time it runs, but the function of the code in whole will not change at all."
Thanks, MagicAndi.
Update
Summary of answers so far:
Runtime optimization of the original code
Assigning a "DNA fingerprint" to each individual copy of an application
Obfuscate a program to prevent reverse-engineering
I was also introduced to the term 'metamorphic code'.
Runtime optimization of the original code, based on actual performance statistics gathered when running the application in its real environment and real inputs.
Digitally watermarking music is something often done to determine who was responsible for leaking a track, for example. It makes each copy of the music unique so that copies can be traced back to the original owner, but doesn't affect the audible qualities of the track.
Something similar could be done for compiled software by running each individual copy through a polymorphic engine before distributing it. Then if a cracked version of this software is released onto the Internet, the developer might be able to tell who cracked it by looking for specific variations produced the polymorphic engine (a sort of DNA test). As far as I know, this technique has never been used in practice.
It's not exactly what you were looking for I guess, since the polymorphic engine is not distributed with the code, but I think it's the closest to a legitimate business use you will find for this kind of technique.
Polymorphic code is a nice thing, but metamorphic is even nicer. To the legitimate uses: well, I can't think of anything other than anti-cracking and copy protection. Look at vx.org.ua if you wan't real world uses (not that legitimate though)
As Sami notes, on-the-fly optimisation is an excellent application of polymorphic code. A great example of this is the Fastest Fourier Transform in the West. It has a number of solvers at its disposal, which it combines with self-profiling to adjust the code path and solver parameters on subsequent executions. The result is the program optimises itself for your computing environment, getting faster with subsequent runs!
A related idea that may possibly be of interest is computational steering. This is the practice of altering the execution path of large simulations as the run proceeds, to focus on areas of interest to the researcher. The overall purpose of the simulation is not changed, but the feedback cycle acts to optimise the calculation. In this case the executable code is not being explicitly rewritten, but the effect from a user perspective is similar.
Polymorph code can be used to obfuscate weak or proprietary algorithms - that may use encryption e. g.. There're many "legitimate" uses for that. The term legitimate these days is kind of narrow-minded when it comes to IT. The core-paradigms of IT contain security. Whether you use polymorph shellcode in exploits or detect such code with an AV scanner. You have to know about it.
Obfuscate a program i.e. prevent reverse-engineering: goal being to protect IP (Intellectual Property).