[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABtNtWEp0hghTfn6RbUPYkgOZ4nKWDfi_Q8we7j0L9im6m4MLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:22:40 +0800
From: Kai Zhao <loverszhao@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: BENCHMARK_LENGTH bugs
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:03:19AM +0800, Kai Zhao wrote:
>> Could we define slow: whose speed is less than e.g. 1000K c/s ?
>
> As per the previous few messages, we shouldn't define slow for the
> purpose of your current work. Since this was merely correlation and we
> already know counter-examples, we shouldn't focus on this aspect.
> We should instead focus on whether the "Many salts" and "Only one salt"
> benchmarks results are expected to be different or almost the same.
The benchmark_length should be 0 if the speedup from "Only one salt"
to "Many salts" is greater than 1%. Otherwise, it should be -1. Is this right?
Thanks,
Kai
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.
