Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 16:55:35 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: New core (?) LM fails alignment On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 01:49:33PM +0200, magnum wrote: > On 2012-07-15 12:57, Solar Designer wrote: > > I decided not to do that yet. Instead, I made the alignment of binary > > and salt configurable per format, which is desirable anyway. While at > > it, I also revised the memory.c code not to assume that pointers fit in > > "unsigned long", although that assumption caused no trouble so far. > > I have no objections to that patch other than I will not likely have > time to merge it within 8-9 days or so, as I'll have to "investigate" > each format while adding this. I thought that you could start by putting safe placeholder values in there - e.g., ARCH_SIZE for all alignments unless it is obvious that smaller would do. Better yet, we can put in an include file: #define DEFAULT_ALIGN ARCH_SIZE and use that. Then it'd be easy for us to grep for DEFAULT_ALIGN and review/replace all those with whatever the format actually requires - when we have time for that. Alexander
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.