[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060704210612.GN1128@annvix.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:06:12 -0600
From: Vincent Danen <vdanen@...sec.ca>
To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: tcb and friends with shadow-utils 4.0.12
* Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> [2006-07-04 10:30:36 +0400]:
> > > > http://svn.annvix.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/releases/2.0-CURRENT/glibc/SOURCES/glibc-2.3-avx-suse-crypt_blowfish.patch?root=packages&rev=5738&view=markup
> > >
> > > This confirms my guess. This patch has:
> > >
> > > -#define BF_ASM 1
> > > +#define BF_ASM 0
> > >
> > > This disables the assembly implementation, thus avoiding the problem
> > > with BF_FRAME being too small.
>
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2006 at 12:18:00AM -0600, Vincent Danen wrote:
> > I noticed that part, but didn't think too much of it because I didn't
> > know what that was. I'm assuming then that, despite putting x86 into
> > the libcrypt-routines part of the Makefile, it wasn't actually being
> > used, correct?
>
> Exactly.
Ok, that makes sense.
> > Ok, I see BF_FRAME is set to 0x200, but I have no idea what would be
> > sufficient to increase it too. Care to give me something I can replace
> > that with and recompile?
>
> As I wrote to you in a private e-mail -
>
> I suggest that you first try to set BF_FRAME really high - say, to 0x4000 -
> to confirm that this does indeed resolve the problem. Then decrease it
> to a value that is 0x100 to 0x200 bytes higher than the required minimum
> (such that it doesn't fail on another build with a similar version of gcc).
I'll be trying that tonight... unfortunately, weekend is over and there
are other things to patch.
> > It would probably be faster than me
> > recompiling glibc a few times to find something suitable.
>
> Also from that private e-mail -
>
> You don't need to recompile your glibc just to test this initially. You
> can use "make check" within the crypt_blowfish directory.
Yeah, I didn't know that. But as I responded to that private email,
make check works, even with nothing changed. So I'm at a bit of a loss,
but will fiddle around with it tonight.
> > I think one long weekend invested turned out not too bad. =)
>
> Yes. If I knew it'd take you an entire weekend, I'd offer to debug the
> problem on your system.
No worries... if I had gotten you to do it, how would I learn? Half the
reason I decided to venture out into my own distro has to learn more
(and that, at least, has succeeded quite well). I can't *always* have
people doing things for me... =)
Might take a bit longer, but the hints work well enough for me.
--
{FEE30AD4 : 7F6C A60C 06C2 4811 FA1C A2BC 2EBC 5E32 FEE3 0AD4}
mysql> SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0;
Empty set (0.00sec)
:: Annvix - Secure Linux Server: http://annvix.org/ ::
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
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.
