Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 22:11:49 +0100 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: bitslice MD*/SHA*, AVX2 On 2015-03-11 21:55, Solar Designer wrote: > For comparison, a non-OpenMP build of john-1.8.0-jumbo-1 on this machine > achieves: > > solar@...l:~/j/john-1.8.0-jumbo-1/run$ ./john -te -form=raw-md5 > Benchmarking: Raw-MD5 [MD5 128/128 AVX 12x]... DONE > Raw: 31923K c/s real, 31923K c/s virtual > > So the speed is finally comparable. That's AVX vs. AVX2, so a > straightforward implementation of MD5 with AVX2 will likely run faster > yet, but the results so far are not conclusively anti-bitslice. Just for the record, Jumbo-1 had an unfortunate regression from a patch meant to mitigate "address-sanitizer" crashes, that was applied without due care about consequences. An extra strncpy() had significant impact on the fastest hashes. I have since fixed this. Current bleeding-jumbo on same machine: magnum@...l:src [bleeding-jumbo]$ ../run/john -test -form:raw-md5 Benchmarking: Raw-MD5 [MD5 128/128 AVX 12x]... DONE Raw: 37842K c/s real, 37842K c/s virtual Regardless, I think the bitslice task is relevant and interesting. 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.