[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <007e01cd7b51$5eba7da0$1c2f78e0$@net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 20:49:25 -0500
From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net>
To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: SRP
Magnum-Jumbo is updated with wow (the 64 bit gmp bug I put in there).
I have not moved to bleeding, but it should be a straight merge.
Jim
>-----Original Message-----
>From: magnum [mailto:john.magnum@...hmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 4:27 PM
>To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
>Subject: Re: [john-dev] SRP
>
>On 2012-08-15 19:20, jfoug wrote:
>> I have fixed the warnings, and added OMP. The change has been pushed
>> to jumbo-bleeding (9c0169a).
>
>You should have pushed it to magnum-jumbo. Now I had to cherry-pick the
>fixes "backwards" to magnum-jumbo and could not avoid it being merged
>back as a dupe no-op commit to bleeding, confusing history. No problem,
>just consider this for future patches.
>
>Note that magnum-jumbo is just as unstable (or stable) as bleeding-jumbo
>(at least in terms of Jumbo code). The only intended difference is they
>are based on different core versions. Normally, the only thing that
>should be directly committed to bleeding are fixes/workarounds/adaptions
>for CVS core. Other than that, it's just a merge branch.
>
>Anyway, it scales just fine on my gear on OpenSSL (1.0.1-4ubuntu5.3):
>
>Benchmarking: WoW (Battlenet) SRP sha1 [32/64 oSSL-exp]... DONE
>Raw: 24424 c/s real, 24424 c/s virtual
>
>Benchmarking: WoW (Battlenet) SRP sha1 [32/64 oSSL-exp]... (2xOMP) DONE
>Raw: 45623 c/s real, 22925 c/s virtual
>
>...but a GMP build now fails self-test, OMP or not:
>
>Benchmarking: WoW (Battlenet) SRP sha1 [32/64 GMP-exp]... FAILED
>(get_hash[0](0))
>
>Benchmarking: WoW (Battlenet) SRP sha1 [32/64 GMP-exp]... (2xOMP) FAILED
>(get_hash[0](0))
>
>Again, fixes to magnum-jumbo please!
>
>
>> I wonder if we should change the name of this from wowsrp (and
>> wow_srp_fmt_plug.c) to srp-wow (and srp_wow_fmt_plug.c), and then
>> build a srp format (and srp_fmt_plug)? This would keep the name
>> similar. It is 'SRP' algorithm, but with the battlenet specifics, vs
>> the 'stock' SRP.
>
>I agree, that will be better in the long run. Though the file name can
>stay IMO (I just don't think it matters, do as you wish).
>
>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.
