Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 19:17:32 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: CUDA tweaking to your actual GPU On 8 Oct, 2012, at 18:11 , Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:40:40AM -0400, Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote: >> So can we do the same for cuda then? > > The same == what? Several things have been mentioned. Anyhow, I and > others in here understand that distros want to be able to have a single > mostly-binary build that is near-optimal for a wide range of systems. > We do have this in mind. > >> This is what hashcat does now as well. > > As far as I'm aware, hashcat uses precompiled kernels with both OpenCL > and CUDA - perhaps many for each hash type, yes (for different GPUs). Why would you want precompiled kernels for a distro though? I assume Hashcat does this mostly for protecting its source code - which we do not need (nor want) to. There are obvious benefits with run-time compilation, and *especially* for distros. It was designed that way for a reason. If you'd make a "jumbo-opencl" package from our current tree, with dependecies of *any* opencl framework package(s), the end user will be able to run it even if his/her hardware (and drivers/framework) are newer than the JtR package itself. I think we have other important tasks for distros though: Apart from the license mess... I'm not sure our current placement of OpenCL and CUDA headers and sources - in the run directory - works at all with a systemwide build. Has anyone tried that? Will they currently end up in the systemwide bin directory or in ~/.john? Will the OpenCL or CUDA program find them at all? 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.