Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:41:19 +0300 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: FMT_OMP_BAD On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 05:23:55PM +0300, Solar Designer wrote: > It is weird that Raw-SHA1 and Raw-SHA1-ng would be treated differently, > even though they are in fact on different sides of the 4.0 threshold: > > Ratio: 3.13780 real, 0.31346 virtual Raw-SHA1:Raw > Ratio: 4.45613 real, 0.46748 virtual Raw-SHA1-ng, (pwlen <= 15):Raw > > I've just confirmed this with some benchmarks I ran. The most important > difference between these two is that -ng is limited to handling > passwords of up to 15 characters long only, which allows it to run > slightly faster. I'm unsure whether we want to add the compile-time > default for OpenMP support into the mix as well or not. I think our > options are: disable OpenMP by default only for Raw-SHA1 (as per the 4.0 > threshold) or for both Raw-SHA1 and Raw-SHA1-ng (to treat them the > same). I think I'd prefer us to do the latter. Another reason to treat > them the same is that I suspect the better performance of -ng would be > less profound when running on a currently typical end-user machine with > 4 physical cores and 8 logical CPUs. (We may confirm this.) > > I'd like magnum's comments on this. Actually, both are already in the FAST_FORMATS_OMP category: [solar@...er src]$ fgrep FAST_FORMATS_OMP rawSHA1_*.c rawSHA1_fmt_plug.c:#if !FAST_FORMATS_OMP rawSHA1_ng_fmt_plug.c:#if !FAST_FORMATS_OMP So we just keep them in there. Alexander
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.