netdev - Re: Endianness problem with u32 classifier hash masks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:49:59 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
Cc:	Radu Rendec <radu.rendec@...s.ro>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Endianness problem with u32 classifier hash masks

On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 08:43:32AM -0500, jamal wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-11 at 14:59 +0200, Radu Rendec wrote:
> > Jarek, thanks for replying my message on the list and pointing it to the
> > right direction.
> > 
> > Your example with "1" bits laying on exact nibble boundary is much
> > easier to analyze than my original example. And your computation seems
> > to be right: u32_hash_fold() would return 00.f0.00.0f (and would be cut
> > off to 0f after applying the divisor mask).
> 
> Yes, that example i believe would work just fine today as is with no
> changes.
...
> Please try the patch i sent since it is simpler. It is your work more or
> less - so you should get the credit as author. 

Jamal + Houston, we have a problem...
...Or talk about different things or patches...

IMHO, both 'today as is' and your 1-st proposal get this example
wrong: we need 00.00.00.ff at the end, don't we? 

Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html