[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <41f060ef64f0e76d49550d6337165972@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 14:22:40 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Interleaving of intrinsics
On 2015-06-01 13:37, magnum wrote:
> Here's a somewhat unrelated note: While MD4/5 just use the w[16] pad,
> SHA1 and SHA2 use w[80] internally. We handle this differently in all
> three: SHA1 keeps a sliding window of tmpR[16] and some EXPAND macros
> (Jim did this, for a 10% boost of Simon's original code that had w[80]).
> SHA256 seems to manage with just tmp1 and the R() macro.
This was incorrect, I think SHA256 effectively does it similar to SHA1.
> And SHA512 actually use an expensive w[80]. This should be looked
> into. I'll have a peak at Alain's code again. Maybe SHA1 and SHA512
> could do it more like SHA256 does it?
Looking at reference code, I'm not sure why we use w[80] nor a smaller
rolling temp for any of them. Is this for not re-doing rotates or something?
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.
