Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:56:58 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl 0.9.5 release and new website On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:35:32AM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> [2012-09-16 23:02:41 -0400]: > > On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:42:08PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > > is the 30K key limit reasonable? > > > > I don't know; can you explain the motivation? > > > > allowing 1G long key is clearly wrong because of dos If time only grows linearly with key length and 30k is no problem, I suspect the runtime for a 1G key is annoying but not the biggest problem. You already have a DoS error if your server let an unauthenticated client allocate 1G of memory.. :-) If it grows superlinearly, then yes, a limit is needed at whatever point the growth becomes problematic, or just at some sane limit (like what you did, 30k) that prevents getting to the problematic range. Either way, I agree it can't hurt to place some reasonable limits in place; I was just wondering if you have some comments on the growth rate. > > It would be nice if these could be done without tables. As-is, I'm not > > really sure the the de-unrolled code is all that much cleaner than the > > original, but at least it's slightly smaller... > > > > if they are calculated inline then the code is even more slow > but not really smaller (the two tables are 128 bytes) > and not really cleaner: Indeed, I was not thinking of generating tables, just wondering if there's a simple arithmetic expression for them in terms of i... However I don't see any obvious answer for most of them. Rich
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.