Re: musl 0.9.3 released

[idunham@lavabit.com]

> On 08/05/2012 03:00 AM, idunham@lavabit.com wrote:
>>
>>> I'd also like to finish and integrate the rest of rdp's porting work
>>> (mips64, ppc, and microblaze) and possibly get an x32 (32-bit ABI on
>>> x86_64) port underway, and integrate additional hash function support
>>> (blowfish, sha, md5) for crypt.
>> All of these sound good.
>> I'm not sure about whether many people would be interested in x32,
>> though?...
> x32 is the latest hype and a lot of work has recently been put into
> toolchain, kernel and debugger support.
> this is probably a good opportunity to get the attention of early
> adopters.

Well, actually, a lot of work has recently been _finished_, so
glibc/binutils/kernel/... now have stable support.  Early adopters have
been using it for a year or few.
The adoption has been rather minimal as far as I can tell; what I meant to
ask was more if any current/potential users of musl intend to use it if
possible. In other words, if you or someone you are in commmunication with
is going to start using musl x32 for any reason besides "It happens to be
supported".

>> Something other than standard crypt (isn't that DES, which can be
>> cracked in a day on the right machine?) would be one of the more
>> interesting ones from my perspective.  Remembering the recent test
>> results, I'd be hoping for bcrypt as well (it's where OpenCL
>> cracking gets the least benefit).
> which test results are you referring to ?

best discussion:
http://openwall.info/wiki/john/GPU
http://openwall.info/wiki/john/GPU/bcrypt

There are several other articles you can find, if you look up john the
ripper gpu hash bcrypt  (or anything reasonably similar...)

> for my part, i think simple DES crypt() in the libc is sufficient.
> busybox 1.20+ ships with a decent set of hash algos to use for login, so
> the libc crypt code isnt used anyway
1. Is busybox the only login we want to support?
2. Is login (or similar) the only place crypt is used?
3. Do we want to rely on the busybox internal code?
4. This is "If you plan to add hashes (which Rich has stated
that he hopes to do, in the original post), please consider
making bcrypt one of them."

Isaac Dunham