[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKGDhHWgkba_BHaCNzzam0=QGYCzAMXE8Gft7HeTrAP6HZeNGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 21:05:49 +0200
From: Agnieszka Bielec <bielecagnieszka8@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [GSoC] John the Ripper support for PHC finalists
2015-04-11 20:02 GMT+02:00 magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>:
> On 2015-04-11 16:39, Solar Designer wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 06:34:26PM +0200, magnum wrote:
>>> md5crypt (opencl_cryptmd5_fmt_plug.c) would be an excellent base for a
>>> single-kernel format. Is there any chance Pomelo would benefit from a
>>> split/loop kernel?
>>
>> Definitely. PHC finalists are expected to often be tuned to defensive
>> running times of 100 ms or more (including multiple seconds), and this
>> may be many seconds of latency on GPUs with their high concurrency and
>> lower clock rates.
>>
>> We'll use lower cost settings when determining the CPU/GPU parity
>> thresholds, which is one of the goals of this projects, but other than
>> that the formats should work for high cost settings as well.
>>
>> So perhaps opencl_cryptmd5_fmt_plug.c isn't a good long-term choice to
>> use as a base for these new formats, although it'd probably work for our
>> initial experiments and it may be simpler.
>>
>> magnum, what base format would you suggest for a new split kernel format?
>
> RAR5 might be a clean base. Many of the other ones support vectorizing
> (decided at run-time) so are somewhat more complex (although that might
> be interesting for Pomelo too?). I suspect some of Claudio's formats
> might be a good start too, I haven't looked much at them as he actively
> maintains them himself.
you mean only opencl version?
or also non-opencl?
thanks
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.
