Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:36:52 +0200
From: Frank Dittrich <>
Subject: Re: Fix salt size of dynamic formats in --list=format-details

On 07/08/2012 07:02 PM, Frank Dittrich wrote:
> On 07/08/2012 04:54 PM, magnum wrote:
>> On 2012-07-08 07:47, Frank Dittrich wrote:
>>> After the logic for the salt size of dynamic formats got changed (just 0
>>> or size of pointer), the output of --list=format-details needed to be
>>> changed in a similar way as --list=format-all-details had been changed.
>> Where should this go? 1.7.9-jumbo-6-fixes? magnum-jumbo? bleeding?
> That patch should go into the trash bin, because it accidentally
> contained some unrelated changes.
> Please apply this one instead to bleeding-jumbo, magnum-jumbo and
> 1.7.9-jumbo-6-fixes. (Jim's fix for the failed self tests I got for some
> dynamic formats with reversed pw.dic changed the usage of salts, the
> --list=format-all-details got adjusted to that change, but not
> --list=format-details.)
> Frank

Looks like this change had been applied as commit
a96222f03eb153ae56d8480ca243e4d5d07b7a5e to1.7.9-jumbo-6-fixes,
magnum-jumbo and bleeding-jumbo on July 08, but that change disappeared
meanwhile from all three trees, even though it is still necessary.

I just noticed this when I wanted to look into adding binary_align and
salt_align to the --list=format-details and --list=format-all-details
output for bleeding-jumbo.

Apparently, the a96222f03eb153ae56d8480ca243e4d5d07b7a5e changes got
reverted (I assume by accident) with this commit:

$ git bisect good
61cea42f979eb07284afc099550f90ae50bb858a is the first bad commit
commit 61cea42f979eb07284afc099550f90ae50bb858a
Author: JimF <>
Date:   Mon Jul 9 11:56:31 2012 +0200



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.