Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:59:36 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: "john-dev@...ts.openwall.com" <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: JtR compilation warnings on OS X 10.7.3 with Xcode 4.3.2

(Top post due to mobile)

Afaik the only formats not using sse2 (if any) are ones that just don't fit the intrinsics. I know of one or two md5 ones but I'm not sure we have any sha1 ones left. In fact i think we have none but that's ottomh. 

magnum


On 29 apr 2012, at 22:21, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:

> Dhiru -
> 
> Thank you for making this test!
> 
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 06:08:48PM +0530, Dhiru Kholia wrote:
>> Hard to believe but Apple's CommonCrypto library is faster than OpenSSL on OS X.
> ...
>> Both programs do 10000000 cycles of SHA1.
> 
> What was the input size - was the compression function invoked just once
> per cycle or more than once?
> 
> Can you repeat this test for SHA-512?
> 
>> Should we start modifying code to use CommonCrypto on OS X?
>> (modifications are very simple to make).
> 
> For SHA-1 in particular, we should use the SSE2+ intrinsics
> implementation that we have in jumbo.  However, if we expect to fail to
> move all SHA-1-using formats to that soon enough, then I am fine with us
> moving to CommonCrypto temporarily (in builds for OS X only, indeed).
> My understanding is that right now some of the SHA-1-using formats use
> the intrinsics and some use OpenSSL.
> 
> (Indeed, we should also keep fallbacks for pre-SSE2 and non-x86 CPUs,
> but recent Mac OS X implies x86 with SSE2+.)
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Alexander
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ