From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun 19 18:40:20 2012
Return-Path: <owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id 01DDE106566C; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:40:20 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:40:19 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no>
Message-ID: <20120619184019.GA4692@FreeBSD.org>
References: <201206191446.q5JEkJTY050836@svn.freebsd.org>
	<20120619161320.GA54109@FreeBSD.org>
	<CADLo838XD7uf798uaQhx6zAEP86QbqcKByZrn+5qn+TUyztT-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120619171726.GA72257@FreeBSD.org> <86d34v40nr.fsf@ds4.des.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <86d34v40nr.fsf@ds4.des.no>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org,
	src-committers@freebsd.org, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r237269 - in head: etc lib/libutil
X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current
	<svn-src-head.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head>,
	<mailto:svn-src-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head>
List-Post: <mailto:svn-src-head@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:svn-src-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head>,
	<mailto:svn-src-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:40:20 -0000

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 08:27:52PM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote:
> Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> > Maybe I don't.  I just want to know if I should switch from Blowfish to
> > SHA512.  It seems that the former is quite popular judging from discussion
> > link given above.  It also seems that des@' rationale for the switch boils
> > down to "I vastly prefer sha512 to blf, as that is what the rest of the
> > world uses."  If there's nothing wrong with Blowfish, I guess I'll stick to
> > it as I prefer compatibility among *BSD to some weird Unix clones.  :-)
> 
> My understanding is that blf and sha512 are approximately equally hard
> (or equally easy, if you like) to brute-force with a CPU, but sha512 is
> supposedly less GPU-friendly.  That plus compatibility - but mostly
> compatibility, to be honest - tipped the scales in favor of sha512.

This CPU vs. GPU particularity is something I wanted to know about,
actually.  Thanks for this piece of knowledge Dag-Erling, and sorry for the
noise.

./danfe