On 21.03.2017 11:23, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 21/03/17 21:01, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 21.03.2017 10:22, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 21/03/17 19:25, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 21.03.2017 06:14, Timothy Arceri wrote:
void
disk_cache_compute_key(struct disk_cache *cache, const void *data,
size_t size,
cache_key key)
{
struct mesa_sha1 ctx;
_mesa_sha1_init(&ctx);
_mesa_sha1_update(&ctx, cache->timestamp, cache->timestamp_size);
+ _mesa_sha1_update(&ctx, cache->gpu_name, cache->gpu_name_size);
For consistency, please add the same + 1 as in the previous patch.
I was trying to appease the people complaining about weakening the hash
by salting it with this driver identifying data.
Huh, I guess I missed that discussion due to vacation and massive
backlog, but I don't see why that would weaken anything. Do you have a
link?
I don't think it would make much difference either but I'm sick of all
the "you should do it this way" shader cache discussions.
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2017-March/148029.html
I skimmed this mail just now.
The disk cache doesn't use salts in any way as far as I'm aware (calling
the addition of driver timestamps a "salt" is a fairly clear
misunderstanding of what a salt is), and even if it were, the "analysis"
of salts in that email makes no sense.
I think it's safe to conclude that that mail is full of bullshit.
Nicolai
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
