Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:24:15 -0200
From: Claudio André <>
Subject: Re: Shared GWS tuning function

Em 28-01-2013 15:54, magnum escreveu:
> On 28 Jan, 2013, at 18:32 , Claudio André <> wrote:
>> Em 27-01-2013 22:58, magnum escreveu:
>>> In bleeding, Claudio has added a shared function for tuning GWS. I haven't had time to try it out yet.
>> It is not hard to use, as you can see attached.
> Yes, I'll do all my formats in one batch when I get some time.
> BTW in this example patch, I see you changed the buffer sizes macros back to variables:
> -#define insize (sizeof(pwsafe_pass) * global_work_size)
> -#define outsize (sizeof(pwsafe_hash) * global_work_size)
> -#define saltsize (sizeof(pwsafe_salt))
> +static int insize;
> +static int outsize;
> +static int saltsize;
> I changed them to macros when I made it honour count argument, just for not having to adjust them whenever GWS changes (including in crypt_all()). Doesn't matter when running, but using the macros you don't have to remember that.
During crypt_all_benchmark you can't change global_work_size (i mean, 
the user might selected GWS=0).

It is ok to revert to macros, but you have to save global_work_size 
inside init (or control if you have to call find_best_gws using 
something else, not global_work_size).

A solution to this (not really tested is attached).

> Anyway, that patch is ready-to-go for bleeding, right? We might just as well apply it.
> magnum

It worked here and on Bull.


View attachment "ver" of type "text/plain" (8150 bytes)

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.