APPROVED. MOU signed. MODIFED (approved) 2023apr21 to add #1044 and adapt budgets. Task list: # Discussion and Finalisation of Which Cryptographic Primitives to Implement Discuss and decide on what cryptographic or other primitives are the most beneficial, simple, or otherwise well-suited for us to implement, since there are too many in existence for us to implement them all. Budget: 2000 EUR URL: https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=770 --------- # Creation of Cryptographic-Primitive OpenPower ISA Pseudo-code Creation of the pseudo-code for the new instructions we will be creating, as well as modification of existing pseudo-code, where warranted, for the purposes of usage as a reference for simulation of the new/modified instructions for testing purposes, as well as potential submission as one or more proposals to the OpenPower Foundation as the de-jure reference for how those proposed new instructions should function. *** MUST NOTDOUBLEFUND ON OPF ISA WG note that usually research phase, involves experimenting with pseudocode variants, so keep an eye on bug #1011 idea is remove remaining budget, reassign *** Budget: 6000 EUR URL: https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=771 --------- # Creation of the HDL Code for the Instructions and Associated Unit-Tests Creation of the HDL code for the instructions used to implement the Cryptographic Primitives. Budget: 9000 EUR URL: https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=772 --------- # High-Level Demos of Cryptographic and Other Relevant Algorithms Creation of demonstrations of cryptographic and other relevant algorithms to demonstrate benefits of our additions and/or modifications. Budget: 5500 EUR URL: https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=773 --------- # Equipment needed, such as FPGA boards and Ethernet PMODs Purchase of equipment needed for development of the router and related projects, as well as possible minor development of equipment needed. Examples of what would be purchased include relatively entry-level FPGA boards and Ethernet PMODs. Budget: 4000 EUR URL: https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=774 --------- # Project Management Management, and other misc. costs such as maintaining our financial records systems. Budget: 4000 EUR URL: https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=775 --------- # Documentation of designs, code, processes, and other relevant things as needed In order to make it more likely for our project to be understandable and useful as part of review. Documentation of designs, code, processes, and other relevant things is necessary. Budget: 8000 EUR URL: https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=776 --------- # Formal proofs and unit tests for cryptoprimitives Formal correctness proofs and unit tests for the cryptoprimitives are needed in the HDL and simulators, demonstrating or proving that the ISA pseudocode, HDL, and simulator are correctly implemented. Budget: 9500 EUR URL: https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=840 --------- # Demo of modulo exponent biginteger a demo implementation of a modulo exponentiation function is needed as a unit test to be run by pypowersim and/or ISACaller. primary uses are for Diffie-Hellman and RSA but there are many more Budget: 2000 EUR URL: https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1044
MAX5834 MAX2830 https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/p0yn45/three_fundamental_flaws_of_simd/h9xhj4k/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
Draft instructions partially designed: https://libre-soc.org/openpower/sv/bitmanip/
i've added a TODO/preliminary top-level milestone for documentation of sky130 and coriolis2, amount TBD. fortunately as this is an "approved" task, work can go ahead even though the exact MoU has not been agreed yet, and budget will be available once tasks are agreed.
I filled out the description and guessed budgets for the tasks here. Appended to the end of the top comment: https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=589#c0 The task list is shorter than I expected (half of the original tasks were apparently moved to NGI POINTER assuming I'm guessing correctly), so imho the budgets may end up somewhat inflated as a result of trying to split 50000 between them...particularly the algorithm demos one...though I could be wrong.
(In reply to Jacob Lifshay from comment #5) > I filled out the description and guessed budgets for the tasks here. > Appended to the end of the top comment: > https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=589#c0 brilliant. i took off the moved tasks > The task list is shorter than I expected (half of the original tasks were > apparently moved to NGI POINTER assuming I'm guessing correctly), yes. > so imho > the budgets may end up somewhat inflated as a result of trying to split > 50000 between them...particularly the algorithm demos one...though I could > be wrong. we can compensate by adding 3 new tasks, FPGAs Management and Documentation. should do the trick.
added the suggested tasks, and rebalanced the budgets. looks good?
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #6) > brilliant. i took off the moved tasks the moved tasks need to be removed from this bug's Depends On list.
hilariousness. all good except "useless" bit :) both Michiel and EU Auditors will be reading the milestones, try rewording with a positive spin even if it's blindingly obvious amd bordering on "filler" words. length is fine, positive or neutral is best
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #9) > hilariousness. all good except "useless" bit :) rephrased: # Documentation of designs, code, processes, and other relevant things as needed In order to make it more likely for our project to be understandable and useful, documentation of designs, code, processes, and other relevant things is necessary.
moved subtasks (that were moved to ngi pointer) to See Also, rather than Depends On list.
(In reply to Jacob Lifshay from comment #10) > In order to make it more likely for our project to be understandable and > useful, > documentation of designs, code, processes, and other relevant things is > necessary. perfect. extra bonus points for including bureaucratic phrases like "promoting outcomes" although that would need conferences or press releases and blogs and blech realistically it is a new milestone and i think we're good. next part literally cutpaste create bugreports, 1st line in title, para as comment0, then edit *this* comment 0 to include full URL. full because the text will be dropped verbatim as Schedule A into MoU
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #12) > next part literally cutpaste create bugreports, 1st line in title, para > as comment0, then edit *this* comment 0 to include full URL. > full because the text will be dropped verbatim as Schedule A into MoU submitted all the bugs and added links.
https://it.slashdot.org/story/23/02/08/2239210/us-nist-unveils-winning-encryption-algorithm-for-iot-data-protection this algorithm has become a high-priority for investigation and research, replacing one of the other algorithms formerly selected when the status of this algorithm was not known at the time. https://code.vt.edu/joyuliao/pyascon/-/blob/master/ascon.py#L283 https://github.com/ascon/crypto_aead/blob/master/ascon128v12/ref/ascon.c#L49
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #14) > https://it.slashdot.org/story/23/02/08/2239210/us-nist-unveils-winning- > encryption-algorithm-for-iot-data-protection > > this algorithm has become a high-priority for investigation and > research, replacing one of the other algorithms formerly selected > when the status of this algorithm was not known at the time. Ok, it will be one of the algorithms I'll prioritise to include for research and test demonstration. > > https://code.vt.edu/joyuliao/pyascon/-/blob/master/ascon.py#L283 Copied, tests seem to run fine. > https://github.com/ascon/crypto_aead/blob/master/ascon128v12/ref/ascon.c#L49 This repo has been deprecated, has been replaced by this one: https://github.com/ascon/ascon-c However the original ascon.c file seems to have been replaced with https://github.com/ascon/ascon-c/blob/main/crypto_aead/ascon128v12/ref/aead.c I copied both repos (crypto_aead and ascon-c), just in case. Will start looking into more next week (still reading on RSA and running ref code for this week).
the MoU Schedule A now has the OPF ISA WG taskspartly duplicated here, must sort that out.
Michiel Leenaars to me, Bob 4 minutes agoDetails Dear Luke, i need *help* doing so. This is what people have offered, and you deemed unnecessary. We can also bounce back the current payment requests, so you can make new ones with the right links. what on earth are you talking about, there are *NO* wrong links. This goes back to the previous part of the sentence. If you have the proof of the work and pointers to the consolidation of those separate elements pointed out in the locations you've pointed us to (which are scattered/distributed across the issue tracker), that is okay. If you don't have the information there, it might be easier to consolidate the information on the wiki/web page and point directly there. So the offer was for us to clear out the existing RfPs, so you would be able to make new payment requests with the information needed. We cannot be "chasing the chain" [1] at this point. Eg. leaving the work in place after a comment like "should we consider this done due to running out of time" (also [1]) without the work being consolidated somewhere isn't a proper closing. [1] https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=785#c13 The project is building a Gigabit Router, and it should be clear at the end of the project where the work stands and where any moving part goes. The same holds for the other project. what works for me is to be ASKED QUESTIONS, to GUIDE me through the process of getting the answers you need. There is no opportunity for that, nor are the conditions you sketch acceptable or reasonable. I suggest you organise matters at your end such that someone else will do this for you, or with you. absolutely not. i will remove the access rights of anyone that attempts to do so. In that case, there might be little point of going on with the above - we will not accept your abuse of others in an official deliverable. This constitutes multiple violations of the IEEE code of conduct to which all grantees are bound as per the Memorandum of Understanding. I would strongly urge you to reconsider, as this crosses professional and legal boundaries and would prevent payment. We will not do back and forth messages about this anymore, this isn't a negotiation. Please only notify us when the work is completed, for us to look at the cleaned up deliverables. Please ask someone you trust to clarify our requests, and if need be these people can ask us for clarification. The next message you send to us will trigger the final review of these deliverables - and if the work isn't completed (or at least considerably approved) at that point we will close the dossier. Best, Michiel
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #17) > Michiel Leenaars > to me, Bob > 4 minutes agoDetails > Dear Luke, > > >> i need *help* doing so. > > This is what people have offered, and you deemed unnecessary. what?? i have requested multiple times that you STOP making false statements and judgements. for god's sake ASK QUESTIONS, i am BEGGING YOU. you should have ASKED. "DO WE UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY that you have refused help?" > So the offer was for us to clear out the existing RfPs, so you would be > able to make new payment requests with the information needed. > > We cannot be "chasing the chain" [1] at this point. due to the ABUSE, michiel, jacob and i are completely beyond exhaustion, and the rest of the people who worked on this have LEFT and are not responding. > Eg. leaving the work in place after a comment like "should we consider > this done due to running out of time" (also [1]) without the work being > consolidated somewhere isn't a proper closing. > > [1] https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=785#c13 the *entire project* has run on that basis michiel, for seven years! we do what we can within the budget, having a "loose" and CLEARLY DEFINED milestone, working TOWARDS that goal. we do not specify EXACT NUMBERS of instructions for example because due for example to jacob's repeated consistent inability to judge time and work estimates, he listed OVER A HUNDRED instructions on a TODO list for a budget of work and time of only THREE WEEKS. i therefore repeatedly had to tell him to cut back to REALISTIC AMOUNTS OF WORK. yet AGAIN you have NOT ASKED QUESTIONS. you should have asked "CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN because this comment looks on FIRST GLANCE like it you've yet AGAIN made an ACCUSATION. please STOP MAKING ACCUSATIONS. this is why i asked you until the point of total exhaustion to ENGAGE A MEDIATOR, and to give me the EC contact details because you KEEP MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS AND ACCUSATIONS and WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT YOU ARE DOING SO. > The project is building a Gigabit Router, and it should be clear at the > end of the project where the work stands and where any moving part goes. > The same holds for the other project. > > > what works for me is to be ASKED QUESTIONS, to GUIDE me > through the process of getting the answers you need. > > There is no opportunity for that, nor are the conditions you sketch > acceptable or reasonable. I suggest you organise matters at your end > such that someone else will do this for you, or with you. > > absolutely not. i will remove the access rights of anyone > that attempts to do so. > > In that case, there might be little point of going on with the above - > we will not accept your abuse of others in an official deliverable. i am REQUIRED to make an accurate report. you have NOT asked for evidence of ABUSE. you have IGNORED that criminal activity has taken place. you have IGNORED that i am DISABLED. get me the EC contact details. fifth time of asking. you have refused each time to date. > This > constitutes multiple violations of the IEEE code of conduct to which all > grantees are bound as per the Memorandum of Understanding. what??? so if that's the case, then you are prohibited from paying MARGARITIS, and have violated the IEEE Code by paying RED Semiconductor Ltd when i told you that their Directors CALDERWOOD and LEWIS have been ABUSIVE and engaged in Coercive Controlling Behaviour against a DISABLED individual (myself) as well as other criminal activity. > I would strongly urge you to reconsider, STOP! i have told you NO. no means NO! for god's sake wy are you not listening when i say **NO** > as this crosses professional > and legal boundaries and would prevent payment. i will not censor the truth. i have told you MULTIPLE TIMES i am autistic. my mother has told you i am autistic. you have NOT adjusted to take that into account in your interactions with me. i have despertely repeated that you need to ASK QUESTIONS and STOP MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS. asking someone who has committed themselves for THIRTY YEARS to operating in Works for the Public Good, and has always spoken truth, to CENSOR what they say, is SHOCKING. why would you keep repeatedly requesting me to CENSOR the truth, michiel? i do not understand. the only thing that makes sense here is if you have been threatened with legal action (which we know that my brother, DANIEL LEIGHTON, has actually done, IN WRITING). > We will not do back and forth messages about this anymore, this isn't a > negotiation. Please only notify us when the work is completed, notification given. the work is completed. if you do not understand ASK QUESTIONS FOR GOD'S SAKE. > Please ask someone you trust to > clarify our requests, and if need be these people can ask us for > clarification. so you trust OTHER PEOPLE, but having been subjected to ABUSE which almost KILLED me, and has left me with BRAIN DAMAGE, you do not trust ME?? you state "we are not going to listen to you but we will listen to other people"? what the hell is going on michiel?? > The next message you send to us will trigger the final > review of these deliverables - and if the work isn't completed (or at > least considerably approved) at that point we will close the dossier. placing me in financial jeapordy because of failures on your part to listen *to me*?? you need to get me those EC contact details. no excuses, no "i doubt they will listen". get me the EC contact details today. sixth time of asking.
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #18) > (In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #17) > > Michiel Leenaars > > to me, Bob > > 4 minutes agoDetails > > Dear Luke, > > > > > >> i need *help* doing so. > > > > This is what people have offered, and you deemed unnecessary. > > what?? i have requested multiple times that you STOP making false > statements and judgements. > > for god's sake ASK QUESTIONS, i am BEGGING YOU. > > you should have ASKED. > > "DO WE UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY that you have refused help?" > > > > > So the offer was for us to clear out the existing RfPs, so you would be > > able to make new payment requests with the information needed. > > > > We cannot be "chasing the chain" [1] at this point. > > due to the ABUSE, michiel, jacob and i are completely beyond exhaustion, and > the rest of the people who worked on this have LEFT and are not responding. > > > > > Eg. leaving the work in place after a comment like "should we consider > > this done due to running out of time" (also [1]) without the work being > > consolidated somewhere isn't a proper closing. > > > > [1] https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=785#c13 > > the *entire project* has run on that basis michiel, for seven years! > please STOP MAKING ACCUSATIONS. i am waiting for a public apology from you for making an aggressive statement that implies i have been attempting to defraud the EC of money for six years, by assuming that we have even *once* done less work than is of value. especially when you yourself have pointed out over the years that in-advance time/budget estimates are really hard and it all balances out. i have also now asked almost 220 times that you ask questions instead of making aggressive statements that exhaust and shock me, and i have told you many times i find it demeaning and belittling to be treated so badly, after working so hard for so long and being taken advantage of. *please stop* the abuse, i do not have to put up with it. > this is why i asked you until the point of total exhaustion to ENGAGE A > MEDIATOR, > and to give me the EC contact details because you KEEP MAKING FALSE > STATEMENTS > AND ACCUSATIONS and WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT YOU ARE DOING SO. > > > The project is building a Gigabit Router, and it should be clear at the > > end of the project where the work stands and where any moving part goes. > > The same holds for the other project. > > > > > > what works for me is to be ASKED QUESTIONS, to GUIDE me > > through the process of getting the answers you need. > > > > There is no opportunity for that, nor are the conditions you sketch > > acceptable or reasonable. I suggest you organise matters at your end > > such that someone else will do this for you, or with you. so when you finally actully ask me - instead of ignoring that you need to ask questions over 220 times - you state bluntly with no negotiation of any kind - with omeone who is AUTISTIC AND LITERAL-MINDED AND DISABLED - a flat-out "no". > > We will not do back and forth messages about this anymore, this isn't a > > negotiation. Please only notify us when the work is completed, > > notification given. the work is completed. > > if you do not understand ASK QUESTIONS FOR GOD'S SAKE. for RFPs submitted ELEVEN WEEKS ago, where you should have ENGAGED SAFELY WITH ME ELEVEN WEEKS AGO, how are you getting on with ASKING QUESTIONS. i will acccept QUESTIONS on this public BUGTRACKER, ONLY, for my own safety.
(In reply to Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton from comment #19) > for RFPs submitted ELEVEN WEEKS ago, where you should have ENGAGED SAFELY > WITH ME ELEVEN WEEKS AGO, how are you getting on with ASKING QUESTIONS. > > i will acccept QUESTIONS on this public BUGTRACKER, ONLY, for my own > safety. the following was received and is being made public as per 7 years of operational committment to FULL TRANSPARENCY dashboard@nlnet.nl Aug 5, 2024, 4:52 PM (10 hours ago) to Jan, 2021-02-052 Dear Jan Delandsheer, Your request for payment of 2024-05-27 19:01 for 2021-02-052: 'The Libre-SOC Gigabit Router' was approved. > this extension amalgamates bitmanipulation primitives from many sources [..] including RISC-V bitmanip, Packed SIMD, AVX-512 Are you sure you want to position it this way, as AVX-512 has been pulled off the market for undisclosed reasons - but to some linked to patent issues Intel ran into? Best regards, Michiel Leenaars
moved to https://bugs.libre-soc.org/show_bug.cgi?id=771#c3
See: https://lists.libre-soc.org/pipermail/libre-soc-dev/2024-August/006451.html As per above, it was agreed to start work on a summary page: https://libre-soc.org/crypto_router_asic/ This was originally an old page from around 2019, but that nevertheless contained some useful resources for anyone interested to continue Libre-SOC work and make a Cryptorouter FPGA or ASIC for themselves. This information I left at the end, as a kind of "Further Work" section. With this summary page, I hoped to clearly state the goal we ended up adopting, and the work delivered, after taking into account the reality of the skills, funds and time available to us. After sending a letter to NLNet, offering the URL of the above page, I received positive feedback. But, as I understand it, they also requested references from the topics I choose to the Milestones themselves. If I understood correctly, those references, just near the links I provided, would allow anyone to have a easy direct path from the Milestones to the respective documentation and code. So, I updated the page with the references to the Milestones, and the final result is again at https://libre-soc.org/crypto_router_asic/