[<prev] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250901022802.GA12540@openwall.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2025 04:28:02 +0200
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: suppressing potfile / minimizing writes?
On Mon, Sep 01, 2025 at 02:16:43AM +0000, Robert Hinson wrote:
> Could the pot be an in memory filesystem?
Yes, which is also what I suggested in my first reply to Royce here.
On Sun, Aug 31, 2025 at 02:47:46PM -0800, Royce Williams wrote:
> One approach would be to detect when filesystem objects that do not support
> chmod are invoked, and skip such steps, and make other modifications so
> that such special files could be used for output.
>
> Another option might be to simply detect when specific, well-known
> filesystem objects (/dev/null on Unix-likes, NUL on Windows, etc.) are used
> for --pot, and simply ... return early on attempts to write to them,
> thereby skipping the filesystem work entirely.
>
> Which of these would be preferable? Or would some other choice be better?
I was thinking a --no-pot option similar to --no-log that we already have.
As to the first approach you describe above, maybe rather than skip
those steps, errno could be checked afterwards and certain error codes
treated as non-fatal.
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.
