|
Message-ID: <20150817134556.GA31031@openwall.com> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:45:56 +0300 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: auditing our use of FMT_* flags On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 08:45:44PM +0800, Kai Zhao wrote: > On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote: > > static char *fmt_self_test_body(struct fmt_main *format, > > void *binary_copy, void *salt_copy) > > { > > static char s_size[32]; > > [...] > > for (size = 0; size < PASSWORD_HASH_SIZES; size++) > > if (format->methods.binary_hash[size] && > > format->methods.get_hash[size](index) != > > format->methods.binary_hash[size](binary)) { > > sprintf(s_size, "get_hash[%d](%d)", size, index); > > return s_size; > > } > > > > and that's the only use of it. In your code, this choice of variable > > name makes no sense to me. > > Could I change the "s_size" to "err_buf" ? Sounds fine. 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.