[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120715105717.GA4863@openwall.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:57:17 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: New core (?) LM fails alignment
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 12:21:52PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> Oh, indeed. I changed BINARY_SIZE from 32-bit to 64-bit, because we now
> derive full LM hash halves (for writing to john.pot) from the binaries.
> This is actually two 32-bit words, not one 64-bit word. But indeed the
> self-test does not know that, and tries to insist on a 64-bit alignment.
>
> I think I will just drop the alignment check, and instead revise the
> loader so that alignment of the pointer returned by binary() would not
> be expected anymore.
I decided not to do that yet. Instead, I made the alignment of binary
and salt configurable per format, which is desirable anyway. While at
it, I also revised the memory.c code not to assume that pointers fit in
"unsigned long", although that assumption caused no trouble so far.
Patch attached.
Alexander
View attachment "john-1.7.9.5-align-1.diff" of type "text/plain" (16445 bytes)
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.
