[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP46274E037035D72907F6D0CFD110@phx.gbl>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 00:09:01 +0100
From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: binary_hash_[0-6] and get_hash_[0-6]
The formats currently implemented implement different numbers of hash
functions.
The following grep commands are not perfect, but I think they provide an
overview which is good enough:
(unstable-jumbo)src $ grep "binary_hash_[0-6]$" *_fmt*.c|sed
's#^.*\(.\)$#\1#'|sort|uniq -c
16 4
103 6
(unstable-jumbo)src $ grep "get_hash_[0-6]$" *_fmt*.c|sed
's#^.*\(.\)$#\1#'|sort|uniq -c
3 0
3 1
3 2
3 3
19 4
3 5
106 6
While certain formats most likely will never be run with a number of
hashes warranting a get_hash_6 implementation, those which currently
implement 5 or 6 hash functions might implement the 7th as well.
Or am I missing something?
Another observation:
Many formats seem to use static copies of the same hash functions.
Would it make sense to provide useful default functions instead of
"implementing" N copies?
Frank
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.
