The ?F code appears to cause a problem
#3
How strange.

I cut-and-pasted the line from the message, and was able to duplicate it on my system:

./cuda --session=three -a 3 -m 0 -1 '?d?u?l?s?h?D?F?R' g2 '?1'
cuda: malloc.c:2451: sYSMALLOc: Assertion `(old_top == (((mbinptr) (((char *) &((av)->bins[((1) - 1) * 2])) - __builtin_offsetof (struct malloc_chunk, fd)))) && old_size == 0) || ((unsigned long) (old_size) >= (unsigned long)((((__builtin_offsetof (struct malloc_chunk, fd_nextsize))+((2 * (sizeof(size_t))) - 1)) & ~((2 * (sizeof(size_t))) - 1))) && ((old_top)->size & 0x1) && ((unsigned long)old_end & pagemask) == 0)' failed.
Aborted (core dumped)


Next, I unpacked the oclHashcat-0.12.7z file into a new directory, and tried it again:

...
Enter YES in uppercase if you accept this EULA: YES
cudaHashcat-plus64.bin: malloc.c:2451: sYSMALLOc: Assertion `(old_top == (((mbinptr) (((char *) &((av)->bins[((1) - 1) * 2])) - __builtin_offsetof (struct malloc_chunk, fd)))) && old_size == 0) || ((unsigned long) (old_size) >= (unsigned long)((((__builtin_offsetof (struct malloc_chunk, fd_nextsize))+((2 * (sizeof(size_t))) - 1)) & ~((2 * (sizeof(size_t))) - 1))) && ((old_top)->size & 0x1) && ((unsigned long)old_end & pagemask) == 0)' failed.
Aborted (core dumped)

The 32 bit version does the same:

./cudaHashcat-plus32.bin --session=three -a 3 -m 0 -1 '?d?u?l?s?h?D?F?R' g2 '?1'
cudaHashcat-plus32.bin: malloc.c:2451: sYSMALLOc: Assertion `(old_top == (((mbinptr) (((char *) &((av)->bins[((1) - 1) * 2])) - __builtin_offsetof (struct malloc_chunk, fd)))) && old_size == 0) || ((unsigned long) (old_size) >= (unsigned long)((((__builtin_offsetof (struct malloc_chunk, fd_nextsize))+((2 * (sizeof(size_t))) - 1)) & ~((2 * (sizeof(size_t))) - 1))) && ((old_top)->size & 0x1) && ((unsigned long)old_end & pagemask) == 0)' failed.
Aborted (core dumped)

Removing the ?F causes it to fail on the 32 bit version, in a different way:

./cudaHashcat-plus32.bin --session=three -a 3 -m 0 -1 '?d?u?l?s?h?D?R' g2 '?1'
cudaHashcat-plus v0.12 by atom starting...

Hashes: 1884750 total, 1 unique salts, 1884750 unique digests
Bitmaps: 21 bits, 1048576 entries, 0x000fffff mask, 4194304 bytes
Workload: 256 loops, 80 accel
Watchdog: Temperature abort trigger set to 90c
Watchdog: Temperature retain trigger set to 80c
Device #1: Tesla M2070, 4095MB, 1147Mhz, 14MCU
Device #1: Kernel ./kernels/4318/m0000_a3.sm_20.ptx

[s]tatus [p]ause [r]esume [b]ypass [q]uit => ERROR: cuMemcpyDtoH() 700

But allows it to work on the 64 bit version:

./cudaHashcat-plus64.bin --session=three -a 3 -m 0 -1 '?d?u?l?s?h?D?R' g2 '?1'
cudaHashcat-plus v0.12 by atom starting...

Hashes: 1884750 total, 1 unique salts, 1884750 unique digests
Bitmaps: 21 bits, 1048576 entries, 0x000fffff mask, 4194304 bytes
Workload: 256 loops, 80 accel
Watchdog: Temperature abort trigger set to 90c
Watchdog: Temperature retain trigger set to 80c
Device #1: Tesla M2070, 5375MB, 1147Mhz, 14MCU
Device #1: Kernel ./kernels/4318/m0000_a3.sm_20.ptx


Session.Name...: three
Status.........: Exhausted
Input.Mode.....: Mask (?1)
Hash.Target....: File (g2)
Hash.Type......: MD5
Time.Started...: Fri Jan 4 07:22:48 2013 (5 secs)
Time.Estimated.: 0 secs
Speed.GPU.#1...: 1800/s
Recovered......: 0/1884750 Digests, 0/1 Salts
Progress.......: 175/175 (100.00%)
Rejected.......: 0/175 (0.00%)
HWMon.GPU.#1...: 99% Util, -1c Temp, -1% Fan

Started: Fri Jan 4 07:22:48 2013
Stopped: Fri Jan 4 07:23:02 2013


Thanks again for looking into this - I'm very much enjoying working with your software!


Messages In This Thread
RE: The ?F code appears to cause a problem - by Waffle - 01-04-2013, 05:24 PM