[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150706082539.GB692@openwall.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 11:25:39 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: PHC: Lyra2 on GPU
On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 01:15:54AM +0200, magnum wrote:
> Thinking loud. Current behavior, for a test run we have:
> reset(NULL)
> self-tests
> benchmarks
>
> And for a crack run we have:
> reset(NULL)
> self-tests
> reset(db)
> crack mode
>
> We could change it to always pass "db" to reset(). It could still *be*
> NULL but we'd never call it with an explicit NULL.
>
> A test run would be effectively the same. A crack run would become:
> reset(db)
> self-tests
> reset(db)
> crack mode
>
> This would solve this issue but a side-effect is reset() can no longer
> tell whether we're about to self-test before a crack or actually run
> one. For resolving that we could simply change
>
> void fmt_reset(struct db_main *db);
>
> ...to
>
> void fmt_reset(struct db_main *db, int self_test);
>
> ...and a crack run would change to:
> reset(db, 1)
> self-tests
> reset(db, 0)
> crack mode
>
> Does this make sense?
Yes, this makes sense to me. Would we actually need to add this "int
self_test"? The few formats that care would be able to count the
reset() calls on their own, perhaps with the counter reset on init().
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.
