Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 14:07:18 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: raw-sha1-ng reduced binary size On 2012-07-01 13:51, magnum wrote: > On 2012-07-01 13:20, Tavis Ormandy wrote: >> magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote: >>> BTW you still advertise a BINARY_SIZE of 20 octets although you would do >>> perfectly fine with 4. The difference is very far from neglectable if you >>> load a couple of million hashes. I *really* think this should be your #1 >>> goal and it's a walk in the park. Take a look at a late rawSHA1_fmt_plug.c >>> and look for BINARY_SIZE vs DIGEST_SIZE. >>> >>> magnum >> >> I understand, I'm just not sure it's worth the performance penalty (because >> I can't treat it like a dqword in cmp_all). I can think of a faster format >> if I store it redundantly, like: >> >> SHA1 =00112233 44556677 aabbccdd eeff3344 eeaa1122 >> BINARY=EEAA1122 EEAA1122 EEAA1122 EEAA1122 >> >> Then I only have to shuffle it once, instead of once per cmp_all. That's a >> saving of 4 bytes per hash, and I can still use it like a dqword, is that >> ok? > > Sure, I did not realize you would end up with a slower cmp_all. There > should be some way around that. > >> I made both changes, so you can choose. I sent you a pull req for the 16byte >> one, but the 4byte one is here if you prefer: >> >> https://github.com/taviso/magnum-jumbo/commit/88ea3e884b7a0bfd5f2452d864c5cc6244fc3f34 You mean ac3bb1951d6f44cad71b9b2d39a095ff140bb2de, right? 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.