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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:28:46 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
CC:	Radu Rendec <radu.rendec@...s.ro>, hadi@...erus.ca,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Endianness problem with u32 classifier hash masks

Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 11/05/2007 10:06 PM:

> Radu Rendec wrote, On 11/05/2007 06:31 PM:

...

>> Jarek, because I have to test anyway, I'll include ffs(mask) in my patch
>> and have it tested too.
> 
> 
> Thanks! But, I did it wrong: + 1 is unnecessary. And since, ffs() checks
> for 0 anyway, this should be simpler:
> 
> - {
> - 	u8 i = 0;
> - 	u32 mask = s->hmask;
> - 	if (mask) {
> - 		while (!(mask & 1)) {
> - 			i++;
> - 			mask>>=1;
> - 		}
> - 	}
> - 	n->fshift = i;
> + 	n->fshift = ffs(s->hmask);
> - }
> 
> Plus maybe (u8) cast on warnings...
> 
> On the other hand, only now I see here is some hack (or bug) with this
> u8, so ffs() would mean a change here. I definitely need to rethink this.

> So, it's probably better to make and test this ffs() patch separately
> (2 parts).


Sorry, I'm only sleeping... u8 is fine of course, and it could be 1 part
as well, or as you like!

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