[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130111075846.GA2048@openwall.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:58:46 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: New plugin load order magic
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 08:26:40AM +0100, magnum wrote:
> I was just considering reverting my patch for now.
Yes, I think you should.
> I tried to follow loader.c but I don't see where it calls init (it does not happen in loader.c).
ldr_split_line() calls fmt_init(). It is called not only by
ldr_load_pw_line(), but also by ldr_show_pw_line(). We could have
ldr_split_line() skip calling fmt_init() if source is not NULL,
indicating call from ldr_show_pw_line(). However:
> Also, does the conventions allow calling binary() without calling init()? Not that I know of any format that would have any problems with that.
This is in fact a problem. Not only does the convention so far not
allow that, but some formats may actually require init() to be called
before binary(). I think some of my DES code may depend on that, in
some builds.
We may want to eliminate the need to call binary() for --show, but this
may have non-trivial consequences (some desirable, some maybe not).
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.
