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.