[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 18:53:17 +0530
From: Dhiru Kholia <dhiru.kholia@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Rejecting hashes in valid() due to memory allocation
failures?
On 12/30/2012 06:51 PM, magnum wrote:
> On 30 Dec, 2012, at 9:09 , Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote:
>> How unlikely is it that a memory allocation failure occurs when trying
>> to crack a huge number of passwords?
>> (This could also be caused by strict ulimit settings.)
>> IMHO, In such a case we shouldn't silently drop valid hashes as if they
>> were invalid, but instead at least print some kind of error message.
>> (May be even change the interface and allow a negative return value in
>> valid(), to signal that there is a more general problem, so that we
>> don't get thousands of error messages for memory allocation failures...)
>
> Maybe the best thing is to just bail out with error(). The shared mem_alloc() and mem_alloc_tiny() will do so. BTW we probably have several places where malloc() should be replaced with mem_alloc().
Sound good. So do we need another wrapper (like mem_alloc) for strdup?
Dhiru
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.
