[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 06:04:45 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: background crypt_all() calls (was: fast freebsd MD5 implementation)
Simon,
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 08:07:17AM +0200, Simon Marechal wrote:
> ... I'd rather have support for ''background'' crypt_all() calls
> (obviously easy to do for crack() mode, but -test would need some
> tweaking).
What do you mean by this? Built-in support for parallel processing -
like fork()'ed sub-processes for multi-CPU and multi-core support and
perhaps also for GPU support? I think that for fast hashes this must be
done at a higher level in the code. Doing inter-process communication
per crypt_all() call would be too slow for those, although for slow
hashes this is an option (and it has its advantages).
Alexander
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail john-users-unsubscribe@...ts.openwall.com and reply
to the automated confirmation request that will be sent to you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
