[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e6b9ebf0d9be60e998ccfdb83e32c94d@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:54:00 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Shared GWS tuning function (was: Proposed optimizations to pwsafe)
On 28 Jan, 2013, at 18:32 , Claudio André <claudioandre.br@...il.com> wrote:
> Em 27-01-2013 22:58, magnum escreveu:
>> In bleeding, Claudio has added a shared function for tuning GWS. I haven't had time to try it out yet.
>
> It is not hard to use, as you can see attached.
Yes, I'll do all my formats in one batch when I get some time.
BTW in this example patch, I see you changed the buffer sizes macros back to variables:
-#define insize (sizeof(pwsafe_pass) * global_work_size)
-#define outsize (sizeof(pwsafe_hash) * global_work_size)
-#define saltsize (sizeof(pwsafe_salt))
+static int insize;
+static int outsize;
+static int saltsize;
I changed them to macros when I made it honour count argument, just for not having to adjust them whenever GWS changes (including in crypt_all()). Doesn't matter when running, but using the macros you don't have to remember that.
Anyway, that patch is ready-to-go for bleeding, right? We might just as well apply it.
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.
