[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120619133139.GA16875@openwall.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:31:39 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [patch] optional new raw sha1 implemetation
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 03:11:30PM +0200, Tavis Ormandy wrote:
> I don't think so, the performance impact is indeed very small, 0.1%
> sounds right. Still, I want that 0.1% :-)
Understood.
0.1% was almost a worst case estimate. How large is your actual
max_keys_per_crypt? Is your cmp_one() really as heavy as one SHA-1
computation? Are you frequently running this against exactly 1 or 2
loaded hashes (not 3 or more)?
I am not sure if there's a way to reclaim that 0.1% without incurring it
(or more) elsewhere. For example, you can do full instead of partial
hash comparisons in cmp_all(), but this might make its code slower
(through differences in the code and maybe through worse locality of
reference when full rather than partial binary hashes are in memory).
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.
