Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:26:34 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: SRP On 2012-08-15 19:20, jfoug wrote: > I have fixed the warnings, and added OMP. The change has been pushed > to jumbo-bleeding (9c0169a). You should have pushed it to magnum-jumbo. Now I had to cherry-pick the fixes "backwards" to magnum-jumbo and could not avoid it being merged back as a dupe no-op commit to bleeding, confusing history. No problem, just consider this for future patches. Note that magnum-jumbo is just as unstable (or stable) as bleeding-jumbo (at least in terms of Jumbo code). The only intended difference is they are based on different core versions. Normally, the only thing that should be directly committed to bleeding are fixes/workarounds/adaptions for CVS core. Other than that, it's just a merge branch. Anyway, it scales just fine on my gear on OpenSSL (1.0.1-4ubuntu5.3): Benchmarking: WoW (Battlenet) SRP sha1 [32/64 oSSL-exp]... DONE Raw: 24424 c/s real, 24424 c/s virtual Benchmarking: WoW (Battlenet) SRP sha1 [32/64 oSSL-exp]... (2xOMP) DONE Raw: 45623 c/s real, 22925 c/s virtual ...but a GMP build now fails self-test, OMP or not: Benchmarking: WoW (Battlenet) SRP sha1 [32/64 GMP-exp]... FAILED (get_hash(0)) Benchmarking: WoW (Battlenet) SRP sha1 [32/64 GMP-exp]... (2xOMP) FAILED (get_hash(0)) Again, fixes to magnum-jumbo please! > I wonder if we should change the name of this from wowsrp (and > wow_srp_fmt_plug.c) to srp-wow (and srp_wow_fmt_plug.c), and then > build a srp format (and srp_fmt_plug)? This would keep the name > similar. It is 'SRP' algorithm, but with the battlenet specifics, vs > the 'stock' SRP. I agree, that will be better in the long run. Though the file name can stay IMO (I just don't think it matters, do as you wish). 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.