Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:22:40 +0800 From: Kai Zhao <loverszhao@...il.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: BENCHMARK_LENGTH bugs On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> 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? Thanks, Kai
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.