[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110716203319.GA10209@openwall.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 00:33:19 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: crypt-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Yuri's Status Report - #10 of 15
Hi Yuri -
Thank you for the status update.
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:07:06AM -0300, Yuri Gonzaga wrote:
> The interfacing thing is still not working.
...
> Is really necessary to keep trying this approach?
This is not entirely necessary, but it would be nice to have it working.
> David already told there are other board that work on Linux similarly to
> windows approach.
> Then, I think this task of mixing Windows and cygwin could waste time with
> an useless thing.
Yes, but we need you to start interfacing real program code (not just
test programs) to FPGA crypto cores.
> Wouldn't I interface using Linux ready board with JtR?
Yes, this will be more important than the Windows thing.
> I think this time could br better used to multiple cores, for example,
> instead of entering those details beyond our scope.
> What do you think?
You're right. Are you able to start implementing multiple cores without
having basic interfacing (to one core) working first?
I expect that David will setup a Linux system with a suitable FPGA board
and working drivers for you to access remotely. But this is not ready
yet. If you're able to proceed with work on multiple cores without
being able to actually test this, or with your own tests only (no JtR
integration yet), then please do that.
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.
