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.