[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150916015804.GA8318@openwall.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 04:58:04 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: ldr_split_line() performance regression
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 03:49:44AM +0200, magnum wrote:
> On 2015-09-16 02:16, Solar Designer wrote:
> >There's some ridiculous stuff in ldr_split_line() in jumbo now, such as
> >repeated uses of cfg_get_bool(). This (or/and something else) made JtR
> >unusably slow for me when not forcing a specific format. Just try
> >running it on pw-fake-unix from:
> >
> >http://openwall.info/wiki/john/sample-hashes#Sample-password-hash-files
> >
> >without requesting any format. It takes tens of seconds to load that
> >tiny file now, which was previously loaded instantly.
> >
> >Please keep any non-trivial processing out of ldr_split_line(), or at
> >least limit it to only be done once (e.g., by using static variables).
>
> Ouch! I use to be careful with these things... but the ones for
> "Disabled formats" were really bad. Fixed now, and loading of that
> sample literally went from 2 minutes to 900 ms on my laptop...
Thanks.
Arguably, 900 ms is still too much for this sample. On my Pentium 3,
this command:
time john -w=/dev/null pw-fake-unix
takes 200 ms:
real 0m0.215s
user 0m0.097s
sys 0m0.035s
with non-jumbo john. I understand that jumbo has a lot more formats to
check each line against (for printing of those warnings), but perhaps
there's something else going on as well. Even with cfg_get*() moved out
of ldr_split_line(), that function is still a lot more complex than it
is in core.
> I already intended to audit all use of cfg_get* some day, because I
> suspect there may be more problems.
Quite possibly, yes.
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.
