[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0ed8a4d944d99f843fb74de2db63c200@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2015 04:39:38 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: JtR on ARM (NEON)
On 2015-07-31 10:35, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 03:58:27PM +0800, Lei Zhang wrote:
>> Benchmarking: sha512crypt, crypt(3) $6$ (rounds=5000) [SHA512 64/32
>> OpenSSL]... DONE
>
> BTW, the 64/32 here is wrong. Should be 32/32. Just because an
> algorithm uses 64-bit integers logically doesn't mean we should
> report it as using 64 out of 32 physical bits, since it can't.
> magnum?
It looks like Jim lost a few lines when adding SIMD support. Fixed now.
>> From the figures above, MD4 and MD5 get 2x speedup; SHA1 and SHA256
>> have no speedup; SHA512 gets a lot slower.
>
> Yes. That's weird(...) Maybe unaligned accesses.
How slow is NEON with unaligned scalar 32-bit? The raw formats'
set_key() read the key (which may be unaligned) using 32-bit loads and
places directly in the SIMD buffer. It might be a coincidence that
MD4/MD5 happens to get aligned test vector keys and the others doesn't.
Other than that I can't see what would be unaligned.
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.
