[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bfc7104e387c5f497eb7324984bae8a3@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 09:04:28 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: wpapsk format hash function weirdness
On 2015-08-14 15:38, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 02:59:17PM +0200, magnum wrote:
>> On 2015-08-14 14:53, Solar Designer wrote:
>>> Can you explain why we're using seemingly inconsistent sets of hash
>>> functions in wpapsk_fmt_plug.c:
>>>
>>> {
>>> binary_hash_0,
>>> fmt_default_binary_hash_1,
>>> fmt_default_binary_hash_2,
>>> fmt_default_binary_hash_3,
>>> fmt_default_binary_hash_4,
>>> fmt_default_binary_hash_5,
>>> fmt_default_binary_hash_6
>>> },
>>>
>>> along with
>>>
>>> {
>>> get_hash_0,
>>> get_hash_1,
>>> get_hash_2,
>>> get_hash_3,
>>> get_hash_4,
>>> get_hash_5,
>>> get_hash_6
>>> },
>>>
>>> If this isn't a bug, then I suggest that we add a comment explaining it.
>>
>> Please note the difference between fmt_default_binary_hash (a stub) and
>> fmt_default_binary_hash_x (real functions, used in a lot of formats).
>
> Sure, but why the binary_hash_0 vs. fmt_default_binary_hash_1
> discrepancy? Why handle the smallest hash table size specially?
binary_hash_0 is simply a copy of fmt_default_binary_hash_0 but with
(#ifdef'ed) debug output added.
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.
