lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 05:22:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steve Thomas <>
Subject: Re: [PHC] OMG we have benchmarks

> On April 1, 2015 at 4:18 AM Gregory Maxwell <> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Krisztián Pintér <> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Milan Broz <> wrote:
> >> - the low memory setting is "unstable" because of RUSAGE measurement:
> >> Real memory us is simple difference of getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF, ...)
> >> before and after run (well, here maximum of three runs).
> >
> > just a quick question: wouldn't it be easier and more precise to
> > calculate the memory requirement instead of measuring it? it should be
> > quite straightforward from the algorithms.
> And would also avoid making mistakes like crediting an algorithm for
> more than it actually needs due to malloc overhead or the like. It's
> not bad to look at the rusage data since it should always be higher
> than the actual usage, and might catch some mistake... but it
> shouldn't be the definitive figure as an attacker (or mature
> implementation) is going to happily optimize out whatever excess
> overheads you're accidentally counting with it.

For the most part with at least 8 MiB they line up. Catena-Butterfly is the odd

Powered by blists - more mailing lists