Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:07:34 +0100 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: OpenCL KPC and LWS On 03/07/2012 11:54 AM, Samuele Giovanni Tonon wrote: > On 03/07/12 11:07, magnum wrote: >> On 03/07/2012 10:03 AM, Samuele Giovanni Tonon wrote: >>> On 03/07/12 00:31, magnum wrote: >>>> >>>> BTW both the LWS and KPC functions should ideally move to opencl-common. >>> >>> yes i agree, unfortunately there's the "hashing" and prepare part in >>> those function which vary from format to format, shall we use a >>> commong function in opencl-common and put a pointer function as arg ? >> >> I haven't looked into the details, I can see it's not totally trivial. >> You'd need to prepare the specifics in the format, and just move the >> common stuff and enumeration loop to common. Hm, or maybe use >> callbacks... you mean pointers to set_salt() et al? > > not only set salt but the all the enque and the specific setting for the > given format >From bench.c the benchmarking is made just knowing function pointers to init(), set_salt(), set_key() and crypt_all(). The only difference here is we want to modulate lws and kpc. For the lws enumeration I think we just need a pointer to crypt_kernel. For kpc you do a lot of specific things - but these are just mimicing crypt_all(). Why not actually use crypt_all(num) instead? This (and using set_key() and set_salt() instead of memsets) will ensure we actually measure the same way as the real deal. I will experiment a little with this. magnum
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.