[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9f83d8e707d2fcc3ca0a6a44b145b41a@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 14:21:25 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Rejecting hashes in valid() due to memory allocation failures?
On 30 Dec, 2012, at 9:09 , Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com> wrote:
> How unlikely is it that a memory allocation failure occurs when trying
> to crack a huge number of passwords?
> (This could also be caused by strict ulimit settings.)
> IMHO, In such a case we shouldn't silently drop valid hashes as if they
> were invalid, but instead at least print some kind of error message.
> (May be even change the interface and allow a negative return value in
> valid(), to signal that there is a more general problem, so that we
> don't get thousands of error messages for memory allocation failures...)
Maybe the best thing is to just bail out with error(). The shared mem_alloc() and mem_alloc_tiny() will do so. BTW we probably have several places where malloc() should be replaced with mem_alloc().
magnum
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.
