[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50D36C55.9080703@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:51:49 -0200
From: Claudio André <claudioandre.br@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Opencl build from binary
Em 19-12-2012 17:28, magnum escreveu:
> I have committed this. I think we should take this opportunity to think about another thing now that we hack around in there anyway: How can we support using multiple devices? Sayantan's mscash2 supports multiple devices already, but only by hacking the format source. We should add proper support using --platform and --device.
>
> Maybe we should drop the --platform notation though? On Bull (where nvidia is device #0), that would mean the Tahiti would become device #1 instead of "platform 1, device 0" and the CPUs would become device #2.
> And maybe we should start from 1 instead - I think Hashcat would list them as device 1 and 2 with no platform notation.
>
> Having done that, the syntax for multiple devices becomes much easier. You could say --device=1 or --device=1,2 and perhaps even ranges like --device=1-8 for vcl use. If we wanted to we could also support types, so --device=gpus would mean "use all available GPU devices".
>
> That's for the options syntax. Now, how would a format use this, or know about this? Should we support using a group of heterogenous devices? What would a well thought out interface to common-opencl.c look like?
Very nice resource to have. I volunteer to help.
- What kind of problems Sayantan faced?
Are we going to create more threads to control (each) device crypt_all?
Claudio
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.
