Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2015 04:20:34 +0300 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: The cmp_all() of cq Kai, On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 04:16:20AM +0300, Solar Designer wrote: > Clearly, your aggressive (even if not entirely correct) testing of > cmp_all() has already uncovered two bugs that we otherwise might have > missed. So maybe continuing to print warnings about cmp_all() is OK, > and we'd need to add a whitelist of formats for which we'd mute those > warnings (upon checking that their cmp_all() is highly prone to false > positives on purpose). In fact, if you keep it aggressive, it makes sense to make it even more so: print a warning if _any_ one (or more) of cmp_all(), cmp_one(), or cmp_exact() reports a possible match when no match is expected. For cmp_exact() this would be a fatal error (test failed) unless FMT_NOT_EXACT is set, but for cmp_all() or cmp_one() merely a warning, which might be a false positive (yet should be printed). 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.