Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:59:21 -0500
From: "jfoug" <>
To: <>
Subject: RE: New core (?) LM fails alignment

With the addition of new param values (salt/bin align), should the fmt_main
version number be kicked up from 10 to 11, or do we simply ignore that
version 10 ever really 'existed'?

NOTE, there is absolute nothing which uses that version number at this time
anyway, so the version number itself is currently really only documentation.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Solar Designer []
>Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 7:56 AM
>Subject: Re: [john-dev] 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:
>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.

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.