[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 02:34:19 +0200
From: magnum <rawsmooth@...dband.net>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: valgrind vs rules
I get this from valgrind when running wordlist + rules (even in plain
1.7.8, no jumbo):
==10714== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==10714== at 0x426690: rules_apply (rules.c:917)
==10714== by 0x42AC35: do_wordlist_crack (wordlist.c:218)
==10714== by 0x420170: main (john.c:306)
==10714== Uninitialised value was created by a stack allocation
==10714== at 0x42AA6D: do_wordlist_crack (wordlist.c:133)
relevant part of rules.c:
905 out_OK:
906 in[rules_max_length] = 0;
907 if (last) {
908 if (length > rules_max_length)
909 length = rules_max_length;
910 if (length >= ARCH_SIZE - 1) {
911 if (*(ARCH_WORD *)in != *(ARCH_WORD *)last)
912 return in;
913 if (strcmp(&in[ARCH_SIZE - 1], &last[ARCH_SIZE - 1]))
914 return in;
915 return NULL;
916 }
917 if (last[length])
918 return in;
919 if (memcmp(in, last, length))
920 return in;
921 return NULL;
922 }
923 return in;
length here is the length of the current word. As I understand it, if
the current word is longer than last has ever been, last[length] is
uninitialized - and this is what valgrind complains about. I'm not sure
I understand the purpose of line 917 at all so I'm not sure this is a
problem 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.
