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