[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <70f3e540608c2df8f2df1c418face0e6@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:59:36 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: "john-dev@...ts.openwall.com" <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: JtR compilation warnings on OS X 10.7.3 with Xcode 4.3.2
(Top post due to mobile)
Afaik the only formats not using sse2 (if any) are ones that just don't fit the intrinsics. I know of one or two md5 ones but I'm not sure we have any sha1 ones left. In fact i think we have none but that's ottomh.
magnum
On 29 apr 2012, at 22:21, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> Dhiru -
>
> Thank you for making this test!
>
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 06:08:48PM +0530, Dhiru Kholia wrote:
>> Hard to believe but Apple's CommonCrypto library is faster than OpenSSL on OS X.
> ...
>> Both programs do 10000000 cycles of SHA1.
>
> What was the input size - was the compression function invoked just once
> per cycle or more than once?
>
> Can you repeat this test for SHA-512?
>
>> Should we start modifying code to use CommonCrypto on OS X?
>> (modifications are very simple to make).
>
> For SHA-1 in particular, we should use the SSE2+ intrinsics
> implementation that we have in jumbo. However, if we expect to fail to
> move all SHA-1-using formats to that soon enough, then I am fine with us
> moving to CommonCrypto temporarily (in builds for OS X only, indeed).
> My understanding is that right now some of the SHA-1-using formats use
> the intrinsics and some use OpenSSL.
>
> (Indeed, we should also keep fallbacks for pre-SSE2 and non-x86 CPUs,
> but recent Mac OS X implies x86 with SSE2+.)
>
> Thanks again,
>
> 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.
