[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110607001530.GA17175@openwall.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 04:15:30 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: crypt-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Yuri's Status Report - #3 of 15
David,
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 04:48:17PM -0700, David Hulton wrote:
> I apologize for this. We only developed the 32-bit Windows side of
> this so that's all I'm really experienced with and just recently got
> it working with 64-bit Windows but haven't fully tested it. Are you
> able to work on this in Windows? The examples make a lot more sense in
> Windows and honestly none of us here have had a chance to play with
> the linux code...
Ouch. Does this apply to E-101 and USB specifically, or to your PCIe
boards as well?
Sure, it's possible for Yuri to proceed on Windows now, but this merely
postpones the problem. We'll need something that can be deployed in
authentication servers - both on software side (which means a Unix-like
OS) and on hardware side (which means PCIe).
I was under impression that E-101 was similar enough to your PCIe boards
in terms of software interface to it - that is, I thought that you'd
simply provide different OS drivers and different interfacing cores
(Verilog code or the like), which would mostly hide the difference from
us, and Yuri's code developed on E-101 would be easily reused on the
PCIe boards. Is this not the case?
How do you suggest we achieve our goal of getting something usable in
production by the end of Yuri's GSoC project?
Thanks,
Alexander
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.
