[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 12:40:03 -0400
From: <jfoug@....net>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
Subject: Re: Use of clear_keys() for SIMD buffer clearing (was:
Re: opencl_mscash2_fmt.c: clear_keys())
---- magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> set_key(1)
> crypt_all(2)
> set_key(1) <- We got a new key(1) without clear_keys()
> set_salt()
> set_key(2)
> crypt_all(3)
> set_salt()
> set_key(3)
> crypt_all(4)
> set_key(3) <- We got a new key(3) without clear_keys()
> clear_keys() <- Why now? This will erase the unprocessed key(3)
The order (I think) is:
clear_keys()
set_key(0)(1)(2)....
set_satl()
crypt_all()
cmp_all()
set_salt()
crypt_all()
cmp_all()
set_salt()
crypt_all()
cmp_all()
.....
clear_keys()
set_key(0)(1)....
I think that is proper order. It could be a set_salt prior to list of set keys, but I think not.
However, benching and testing may not observe proper order. I know there was no clear_keys in test loop before I made a change, and I am not sure it is there. I am not at a computer I can check on this, at this time, but I will look into it when I get a chance.
Jim.
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.
