Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 20:52:04 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: New core (?) LM fails alignment On 2012-07-15 14:55, Solar Designer wrote: > 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. Merged and committed now. I do not think there were any new merge "hazards". I'm using this in formats.h: /* * Default alignment (used unless known) */ #ifdef ARCH_ALLOWS_UNALIGNED #define DEFAULT_ALIGN MEM_ALIGN_NONE #else #define DEFAULT_ALIGN MEM_ALIGN_WORD #endif Many formats will probably benefit from using 4 bytes alignment instead of MEM_ALIGN_NONE, should we consider using that instead? I set Tavis' binary alignment to MEM_ALIGN_SIMD, for everything else I used DEFAULT_ALIGN for now. 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.