From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1491 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: crypt* files in crypt directory Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:17:36 -0400 Message-ID: <20120809211736.GT27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120808022421.GE27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120808044235.GA22470@openwall.com> <20120808075233.GJ30810@port70.net> <20120808130622.GJ27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120809015104.GA24515@openwall.com> <20120809032527.GN27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120809040432.GA24985@openwall.com> <20120809054804.GO27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120809155254.GA28303@openwall.com> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1344547018 26843 80.91.229.3 (9 Aug 2012 21:16:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 21:16:58 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1492-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Aug 09 23:16:58 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Sza6B-0002LX-OS for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:16:55 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 19595 invoked by uid 550); 9 Aug 2012 21:16:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 19586 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2012 21:16:54 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120809155254.GA28303@openwall.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1491 Archived-At: On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 07:52:55PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote: > > I don't see any down-size to limiting the iteration count if the limit > > is reasonable. For instance if the limit were such that higher counts > > would take more than 1 second on a theoretical 50 GHz variant of a > > modern cpu (which is faster than a single core will EVER be able to > > get), there's no way they would be practical to use, and there's no > > sense in supporting them except to satisfy a fetish for "no arbitrary > > limits" even when it conflicts with security and robustness. This > > would at least ensure the function can't get stuck running for > > hours/days/weeks at a time. > > > > The hard part is putting the limit at some point a good bit lower. > > This makes some sense. After some casual tests, I would say somewhere around 16 is appropriate as the absolute upper cut-off, and 12-14 is probably the "point a good bit lower" we're aiming for. Anyone else have opinions on this? Information on what's in common use in the wild? (I would guess 4-8 is typical in the wild..) Rich