Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:22:40 +0800
From: Kai Zhao <>
Subject: Re: BENCHMARK_LENGTH bugs

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Solar Designer <> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:03:19AM +0800, Kai Zhao wrote:
>> Could we define slow: whose speed is less than e.g. 1000K c/s ?
> As per the previous few messages, we shouldn't define slow for the
> purpose of your current work.  Since this was merely correlation and we
> already know counter-examples, we shouldn't focus on this aspect.
> We should instead focus on whether the "Many salts" and "Only one salt"
> benchmarks results are expected to be different or almost the same.

The benchmark_length should be 0 if the speedup from "Only one salt"
to "Many salts" is greater than 1%. Otherwise, it should be -1. Is this right?



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.