john-dev - Re: auditing our use of FMT

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150815162433.GA14408@openwall.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 19:24:34 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: auditing our use of FMT_* flags

Kai,

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 10:33:57AM +0800, Kai Zhao wrote:
> Hope the following patch can solve the two problems.
> 
> https://github.com/magnumripper/JohnTheRipper/pull/1664/files

This looks mostly OK to me.

BTW, why do you call the error message buffer s_size?  Why that name?

I see there is an s_size in core tree, but it's used like this:

static char *fmt_self_test_body(struct fmt_main *format,
    void *binary_copy, void *salt_copy)
{
	static char s_size[32];
[...]
		for (size = 0; size < PASSWORD_HASH_SIZES; size++)
		if (format->methods.binary_hash[size] &&
		    format->methods.get_hash[size](index) !=
		    format->methods.binary_hash[size](binary)) {
			sprintf(s_size, "get_hash[%d](%d)", size, index);
			return s_size;
		}

and that's the only use of it.  In your code, this choice of variable
name makes no sense to me.

Alexander

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.