phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Updated tests document

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <20150406211733.GA17067@openwall.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 00:17:33 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Updated tests document

Milan,

On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 11:10:27PM +0200, Milan Broz wrote:
> It would be very nice to test also parallel attribute but then functions should
> export some unified interface.
> If it is not too late, maybe addinng m_parallel to PHS() as a tweak...

I know it's not right for your use case, but for password hashing on a
server the parallelism would be external to PHS(), so maybe you can
simply have your own wrapper start multiple independent threads, for
independent password hashes computed with their own PHS() calls?  And
provide a chart showing throughput in requests/second vs. memory usage
(e.g. 128 KB to 128 MB), at the lowest supported t_cost and the maximum
number of concurrent threads supported in hardware (e.g. 8 on a
currently typical quad-core CPU).  I'd find such results helpful.

Thank you!

Alexander