CentOS - Jan 2014 - Hash rounds in /etc/libuser.conf won't work - how to report a bug

Two weeks ago I reported a problem I was having in the CentOS 5 Security Support
forum. I could not get hash rounds, configured in /etc/libuser.conf, to work on
CentOS release 5.10 (Final), 2.6.18-371.3.1.el5 x86_64. The details are here:
https://
www.centos.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=24&sid=44859638070165ed5d8d9c35cdbe0378

I read all the documentation and looked for more off the CentOS site. I searched
the entire CentOS site for hash_rounds_min and hash_rounds_max, the parameters
changed in libuser.conf to configure the desired changes, without a single hit
in any area on either. Nearly 800 people have seen my post and not a single
reply; not unusual in that forum for what may be an infrequent situation.
I'm guessing very few people have tried these options. At the same time I
changed the hashing algorithm. Hash rounds only works with sha256 or sha512.
This worked the first time.

The concept of configurable hash rounds is the administrator can adapt the the
hashing process to the specific hardware on which this is being configured and
on faster hardware when a system is installed late in a OSs life cycle, up the
rounds to make cracking harder. If an admin is willing to make users wait 2
seconds on every login and su, then a cracker on similar hardware could only get
0.5 cracks per second. This would make even 3 character passwords that did not
fall to dictionary attacks tedious, and "good" 6 character passwords
would be uncrackable. Even with a fast cracking network, with multiple GPGPU
enabled PCs and a mixture of compromised systems working 10,000 times faster
than the single PC, good 6 character passwords would be a serious obstacle and 8
quite uncrackable.

I need this for a paper I'm writing which maintains "After 20 Years,
Windows Passwords Still Broken". I want to compare Windows' poor MD4
with no salts (this is about NT hashes, not the notoriously broken LM hashes),
to Unix like with salts, choice of algorithms, and hashing cycle control. The
comparison is much weaker if I have no working example for one of the 3 key
pieces on the Unix side.

If anyone has successfully used hash rounds controls, I'd very much like to
know what you did that I missed in my detailed forum report.

It's possible there is no bug. I'm basing this on the belief that 900
million to 1 billion hashing rounds should produce a substantial delay and not
complete in a small fraction of a second. Either my knowledge is way of or my PC
MUCH faster than I thought it was, or there is a bug, if I've done
everything correctly according to the documentation.

I looked up how to report a bug and this said to submit the report to the
CentOS-qa mailing list but I cannot find such a list.