On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 16:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > It looks like it will work OK, but it's kinda ugly in that starts > > embedding version stuff into the mdfour implementation. Still... its > > better than the nothing I've produced :-) > > Yes, it's certainly not elegant. An alternative would be to > have two different sets of MD4 routines and then have more > logic in checksum.c to call the correct routines. That makes > for more changes to checksum.c but avoids a library depending > upon a global variable.
I don't think you need two whole implementations of MD4 routines, just a replacement _tail function and replacement _result function to use it. Note that truncating the bit count to 32 bits can be done in the _tail function. It might even turn out easier to just write a _result replacement that munges the mdfour struct (ie, truncs the byte count and empties the tail buffer) before calling the correct _result implementation. These can be put into the checksum.c with the appropriate protocol version logic. That way the mdfour.c implementation becomes a fixed stand-alone md4 implementation (that can be replaced with faster/cleaner standard implementations further down the track). > Or we could add a new function in mdfour.c, eg: mdfour_broken(), > that gets called once at startup if remote_version < 27. This > would avoid the need for md4 to pull in remote_version. This still puts protocol version specific code into mdfour.c, making it harder further down the track to drop in a replacement implementation or link against a standard md4 library implementation. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Donovan Baarda http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
