Hi,
> > If we want to add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS inside the loop I think a brief
> > comment would be appropriate.
>
> This has been completed in patch v2 and it's ready for review.
Thanks!
> > I don't think it would be useful to limit this at an arbitrary point, iteration
> > count can be set per password and if someone wants a specific password to be
> > super-hard to brute force then why should we limit that?
> I agree with that. Maybe some users do want a super-hard password.
> RFC 7677 and RFC 5802 don't specify the maximum number of iterations.
That's a fairly good point. However we are not obligated not to
implement everything that is missing in RFC. Also in fact we already
limit the number of iterations to INT_MAX.
If we decide to limit this number even further the actual problem is
to figure out what the new practical limit would be. Regardless of the
chosen number there is a possibility of breaking backward
compatibility for certain users.
For this reason I believe merging the proposed patch would be the
right move at this point. It doesn't make anything worse for the
existing users and solves a potential problem for some of them.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
