[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:07:39 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Recent CVS patches
On 01/16/2012 08:47 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 08:36:23PM +0100, magnum wrote:
>> It fails with "FAILED (binary)" because the binary is misaligned. But
>> that is because fmt_default_binary just pass the ciphertext pointer, so
>> if something is misaligned it's not because of BFEgg - or is it? And
>> who/what says BFEgg needs alignment in the first place? I believe it
>> doesn't.
>
> You seem to be right. The alignment requirements in the self-tests in
> the current CVS tree are too strict.
>
> How do you suggest we deal with this? Introduce FMT_* flags that tell
> the self-tests that misalignment of binary and/or salt is OK? Or simply
> drop this test for all?
It would be a pity dropping that test. Especially since most of us use
intel. Actually I think it's easier to make a format return aligned data
(needed or not), than to add the flag (because we'd need to take care
that such a flag is proper). From a quick glance there were just six
formats that failed this, four binary() and two salt(). I can fix them
instead, even if not really needed for those formats.
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.
