[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4a7cb9e998894c56b118b18221ccf0cb@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:58:09 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: *pcount type should be uint64_t
On 22 Aug, 2013, at 20:10 , Sayantan Datta <std2048@...il.com> wrote:
> Since *pcount is updated inside crypt all, its value sometimes exceed unsigned int range producing wrong c/s result. Currently *pcount is int type which is clearly not sufficient.
>
> Since it is a core bug I think it is better if you deal with this otherwise I will try to fix this issue if you say so.
Are you saying you may process more than 4G keys in a single call to crypt_all()? A kernel duration should be in the range of 100 ms, not seconds. Even using signed int and 2G keys my spontanteous reflection is that you should process fewer keys per kernel call. Or does that really hit performance?
Having said that, I'm perfectly fine with changing to unsigned int for a starter.
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.
