john-users - Re: MinGW build

Openwall Project		/home Owl JtR Pro crypt pam_passwdqc tcb phpass scanlogd popa3d msulogin / Linux BIND / advisories presentations / services donations / wordlists passwords / news community lists wiki CVSweb mirrors signatures
bringing security into open environments

Password Recovery Resources on the Net

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 17:51:18 +0200
From: Michal Luczaj <regenrecht@...pl>
To:  john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: MinGW build

Solar Designer wrote:
> Well, you're still using the return value from clock() to emulate the
> return value of times().  According to POSIX.1-2001, clock() "shall
> return the implementation's best approximation to the processor time
> used by the process ...", whereas times() "shall return the elapsed real
> time ..."  So this patch looks wrong to me.

Does it mean that glibc is wrong too? In The GNU C Library at
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Processor-Time.html I
red that:

"The return value [of times()] is the calling process' CPU time (_the
same value you get from clock()_. times returns (clock_t)(-1) to
indicate failure."

Did I misunderstand something?

What is more, after running --test, it seemed that everything was fine:
Benchmarking: Traditional DES [64/64 BS MMX]... DONE
Many salts:     593832 c/s real, 596535 c/s virtual
Only one salt:  538966 c/s real, 548912 c/s virtual

>> Solar, I would be very grateful if you could put this in contrib/ as
>> well.
> It's there:

Thank you! (even if patch is wrong again :)

Michal