Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:36:52 +0200 From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com 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 <jfoug@....net> Date: Mon Jul 9 11:56:31 2012 +0200 Jumbo-7RC-JimF-fixes.diff Frank
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.