Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 22:27:16 +0200
From: Katja Malvoni <kmalvoni@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Parallella: bcrypt

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
>
> > What is the overhead in case that S-boxes are hard coded in the device
> > code?
>
> What do you mean by this?
>

I'm sorry, I expressed myself wrongly. What I meant is what if I put
S-boxes in the device code instead of transferring them from the host
memory. I assumed that it gets transferred to the core in a different
way than transferring it from the host using e_write(). But:

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Yaniv Sapir <yaniv@...pteva.com> wrote:
> e_load() actually used e_write() to load the chip with the program image, so it should be just as efficient to load the S-boxes as it
> would be to write them. Note that is the S-boxes do not change, than you may be able to keep it in memory, in case you need to
> load a different program.

Katja

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.