[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150814133812.GA26696@openwall.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 16:38:12 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: wpapsk format hash function weirdness
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 02:59:17PM +0200, magnum wrote:
> On 2015-08-14 14:53, Solar Designer wrote:
> >Can you explain why we're using seemingly inconsistent sets of hash
> >functions in wpapsk_fmt_plug.c:
> >
> > {
> > binary_hash_0,
> > fmt_default_binary_hash_1,
> > fmt_default_binary_hash_2,
> > fmt_default_binary_hash_3,
> > fmt_default_binary_hash_4,
> > fmt_default_binary_hash_5,
> > fmt_default_binary_hash_6
> > },
> >
> >along with
> >
> > {
> > get_hash_0,
> > get_hash_1,
> > get_hash_2,
> > get_hash_3,
> > get_hash_4,
> > get_hash_5,
> > get_hash_6
> > },
> >
> >If this isn't a bug, then I suggest that we add a comment explaining it.
>
> Please note the difference between fmt_default_binary_hash (a stub) and
> fmt_default_binary_hash_x (real functions, used in a lot of formats).
Sure, but why the binary_hash_0 vs. fmt_default_binary_hash_1
discrepancy? Why handle the smallest hash table size specially?
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.
