[kismac] Re: Intel port -almost- complete
- From: Geoffrey Kruse <gkruse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: kismac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:48:41 -0700
Thanks for the quick response.
I have one other unrelated question:
I'm unable to open the .nib files in IB, I get the following error:
Palette (RollOverButtonPalette) was not found
Any ideas on how to fix this?
Geoff
On Feb 22, 2006, at 10:02 PM, Michael Rossberg wrote:
Hi,
next time you can write me directly =). swapping is not really
something you want to do here. because it is slow and this function
needs to be fast. it also does not matter if it returns a different
value on intel machines, as long as it always returns the same on
that machines (wont affect saved files). however currently the
function will always return 0 or some in defined value. you will
need to remove the +1's and +2's i belive...
the fast lookup is indeed not used currently because of its intense
memory usage...
good luck
mick
On 23.02.2006, at 05:14, Geoffrey Kruse wrote:
Just writing to let everyone know I have made a large amount of
progress on the intel port. Saving and scanning is -mostly-
working with both Airport Extreme (active) and prism 2 usb. The
largest remaining issue is giving me some trouble though. The
hashformac() function seems to return different values for the
same input on the intel machines which causes the same net to show
up multiple times. I'm going to continue to look into this, but I
thought I'd ask the list to see if someone (mick?) can figure this
out more quickly than I can. Here is the function:
inline UInt32 hashForMAC(const UInt8* val) {
UInt32 l, j, k;
//add to hash table
#ifdef FASTLOOKUP
memcpy(((char*)&l)+1, val, 3);
memcpy(((char*)&j)+1, val+3, 3);
l = (l ^ j) & 0x00FFFFFF;
#else
memcpy(((char*)&l)+2, val, 2);
memcpy(((char*)&j)+2, val+2, 2);
memcpy(((char*)&k)+2, val+4, 2);
l = (l ^ j ^ k) & 0x0000FFFF;
#endif
return l;
}
My guess is maybe they bytes in UInt8 * val are swapped or
something but I'm not really sure how to fix this. maybe with swab
()? FASTLOOKUP seems to not be defined on the code, so it is
using the second method to create the hash.
Hope to get this finished up soon, so we can get a little more
heavy testing on it. I'm also pretty sure that all cracking
methods are still borked but I have no way to test this. We can
fix that later when I get my hands on an intel mac.
Geoff
p.s. Sorry to the non-code oriented people on the list, you can
just ignore this
Other related posts:
