[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <616a40ff2dc66041f8a213e21421b79b@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 01:59:34 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: asan report
On 2012-06-30 13:09, Tavis Ormandy wrote:
>>> In fact, I was going to suggest adding a flag that guarantees it will be
>>> 16-byte aligned so I can use MOVDQA.
>>
>> I've had such thoughts too. But I'm not sure how we'd handle wordlist
>> buffer mode (which is a huge speedup). We'll need to think it over.
>>
>
> OK, sounds good to me.
BTW you still advertise a BINARY_SIZE of 20 octets although you would do
perfectly fine with 4. The difference is very far from neglectable if
you load a couple of million hashes. I *really* think this should be
your #1 goal and it's a walk in the park. Take a look at a late
rawSHA1_fmt_plug.c and look for BINARY_SIZE vs DIGEST_SIZE.
magnum
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.
