[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 14:16:09 +0530
From: Sayantan Datta <std2048@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: descrypt-opencl "section 0" fix
On 10/30/13, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> On 2013-10-29 18:16, magnum wrote:
>> On 2013-10-29 15:23, Solar Designer wrote:
>>> descrypt-opencl was failing to crack some of the hashes the correct
>>> candidate passwords for which appeared in indices 0 to 31.
>>
>>> The attached patch attempts to and appears to correct this. At least my
>>> tests pass now. Note that while I am patching both instances of the
>>> code, I think I have tested only one of them.
>>
>> Committed. I'll investigate if we can enhance the Test Suite in some way.
>
> Sayantan,
>
> These changes in 0c2259b as well as other changes in 1c5e1e5 has not
> been merged to the bleeding-mask branch because of conflicts. You get to
> do that. BTW I'm really growing tired of maintaining bleeding-mask,
> nothing seems to happen there anyway?
>
> magnum
>
>
>
I didn't had much free time lately, so there wasn't much progress in
the bleeding-mask branch, As you mentioned earlier CPU mask mode is
slower than incremental mode, I'll work on that. Also what are our
expectations with bleeding-mask ? Do we want to release it as jumbo
someday ?
Regards,
Sayantan
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.
