[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 20:38:52 +0200
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: OpenCL Failures with John Bleeding
Hi Erik,
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:30:21AM -0400, Erik Winkler wrote:
> I am seeing the following OpenCL failures in MacOS 10.13.4 with a Radeon RX 580 GPU.
Thanks for reporting. However, that's not how we use (or rather, don't
use) the john-dev list lately. This sort of reports belong either on
john-users (if you also want to inform the users that there's a problem
and/or see if anyone knows a workaround and/or if you're unsure the
issue is with JtR rather than with your use of it and maybe someone will
correct you) or right on GitHub. This time, your report resulted in
this GitHub issue being created and handled:
https://github.com/magnumripper/JohnTheRipper/issues/3234
john-dev used to be for whatever is too advanced for john-users and is
focused on development - with the threshold being "does the message or
will the thread very likely discuss source code changes". A simple
"doesn't work for me" with the detail provided (thanks again!) is
usually below that threshold - so it's john-users material, and lately
if the problem is obviously an issue with JtR (not with usage) then also
GitHub material.
Now that most development discussions went on GitHub (I don't like that,
but with magnum and others being more active than me it's up to them, so
I play along), I think we may still use john-dev for development focused
discussions that wouldn't fit one specific GitHub issue, but are too
advanced or too specialized for john-users. For example, it could be a
question (thus, not a GitHub issue) on JtR internals (asked specifically
for the purpose of JtR development, and too specific to be of use for
john-users) from one of us to the rest of us (or to a specific person,
but discussed in public to benefit all). It could also be advice or an
opinion on future JtR development with discussion of the source code
(e.g., "I'm considering to re-arrange these programming interfaces in
such and such ways, what do others think?" - not "I'd like to add this
feature", which is a topic for john-users) We may post pieces of what
may become "development documentation" in here. We may also summarize
sets of GitHub issues and figure out who's to work on them.
These recent messages/threads do fit in here:
http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-dev/2018/02/14/1
"Profiling John"
http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-dev/2017/12/31/1
"CygWin fallback"
http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-dev/2017/12/01/1
"benchmarking salt-only formats"
http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-dev/2017/11/14/1
"Why would crypt_all() need/want to generate additional candidate passwords?"
http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-dev/2017/11/12/1
"max_keys_per_crypt tuning"
http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-dev/2017/09/08/1
"Argon2"
The rest of recent threads (same timeframe as above), not so much
(including even some of mine, which could be simple GitHub issues now
that we use GitHub for most one-off development issues anyway, although
for "operator precedence in external mode" I wanted to archive the test
case in some place more under our control than GitHub issue comments,
whereas most others' postings should have been on john-users).
I am posting this not as criticism, but rather to encourage distinct use
of john-dev going forward (not as an arbitrary alternative to john-users
and GitHub, nor leaving john-dev unused whereas we might sometimes need
to discuss topics that actually don't fit on john-users and GitHub well).
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.
