[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131110052944.GB25489@openwall.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 09:29:44 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: bcrypt-parallella on 64-core (was: Katja's weekly report #13)
Hi Katja,
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:09:03PM +0100, Katja Malvoni wrote:
> I tried this and it "works". Performance on E64 is 4691 c/s.
Cool!
> But if I run self test again, it fails on get_hash[0](1).
>
> In local memory, this is how expanded key should be stored (this is for
> core 0, 0):
> [0x000049a8] = 0x552a5500
> [0x000049ac] = 0x552a5500
[...]
> But for core 0, 1 on second run it is like this:
> [0x000049a8] = 0x552a552a
> [0x000049ac] = 0x00552a55
[...]
> If I change host code to store it on another memory location than again it
> passes self test only once. Epiphany code doesn't modify expanded key so I
> don't see how these extra zeros end up on those memory locations.
I don't see any "extra zeros" here - on the contrary, some NUL bytes are
missing in the second set of values you posted above.
In fact, your first set of values appears to correspond to tests[0], and
the second set to tests[1]. So maybe there's no problem with them at all.
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.
