[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
