Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:07:59 +0300 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: larger bitmaps and hash tables On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 06:54:41PM +0200, magnum wrote: > On 2015-09-16 19:44, Solar Designer wrote: > >This last one might be related to the "while (--size >= 0);", which no > >longer stops the loop when size was already 0. It might be a real bug > >that would show up if we set PASSWORD_HASH_SIZE_FOR_LDR lower. > > It was worse than that, it was definitely a bug. I'm surprised it worked > at all. I committed a fix separating the signed int used for the loop > from the size_t used for the alloc. Yeah, I posted a similar patch in here: http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-dev/2015/09/18/15 Yours is shorter due to it renaming the other use of the previously reused variable. > BTW in case we start using mem_calloc we won't need that size_t at all, > we'd just do > > db->password_hash = mem_calloc(password_hash_sizes[size], > sizeof(struct db_password *)); Sure. I had it that way in the tree where I observed fork() slowdown. (And some other memset()'s were changed as well.) 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.