From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1952 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl 0.9.5 release and new website Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:56:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20120918135658.GJ254@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120915081227.GD27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120915135340.GI9428@port70.net> <20120916032931.GB254@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120916214208.GL9428@port70.net> <20120917030241.GH254@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120917073532.GM9428@port70.net> 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: ger.gmane.org 1347977142 8248 80.91.229.3 (18 Sep 2012 14:05:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:05:42 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1953-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Sep 18 16:05:46 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 1TDyQs-0007W6-3U for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:05:46 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 17901 invoked by uid 550); 18 Sep 2012 14:05:40 -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 17893 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2012 14:05:40 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120917073532.GM9428@port70.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1952 Archived-At: On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:35:32AM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Rich Felker [2012-09-16 23:02:41 -0400]: > > On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 11:42:08PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > > is the 30K key limit reasonable? > > > > I don't know; can you explain the motivation? > > > > allowing 1G long key is clearly wrong because of dos If time only grows linearly with key length and 30k is no problem, I suspect the runtime for a 1G key is annoying but not the biggest problem. You already have a DoS error if your server let an unauthenticated client allocate 1G of memory.. :-) If it grows superlinearly, then yes, a limit is needed at whatever point the growth becomes problematic, or just at some sane limit (like what you did, 30k) that prevents getting to the problematic range. Either way, I agree it can't hurt to place some reasonable limits in place; I was just wondering if you have some comments on the growth rate. > > It would be nice if these could be done without tables. As-is, I'm not > > really sure the the de-unrolled code is all that much cleaner than the > > original, but at least it's slightly smaller... > > > > if they are calculated inline then the code is even more slow > but not really smaller (the two tables are 128 bytes) > and not really cleaner: Indeed, I was not thinking of generating tables, just wondering if there's a simple arithmetic expression for them in terms of i... However I don't see any obvious answer for most of them. Rich