On 07/ 8/10 02:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 02:40:00PM -0700, Brock Pytlik wrote:
On 07/ 8/10 02:12 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
On 07/07/2010 23:43, Brock Pytlik wrote:
[snip]
If the intent is that the signature section only exists in signed
packages you just need pkg.sigalg=rsa-sha256, you don't need a
pkg.hashalg as well.
However if the intent is to have pkg.hashalg be used for non
signed packages then having both pkg.hashalg and pkg.sigalg
present when they are signed is fine too.
I feel like we're talking past each other here, so I'm going to try
and rephrase the question I have.
You keep saying that pkg.sigalg should be something like
"rsa-sha256." I'm asking why it's not possible to construct that
value from two pieces, pkg.hashalg, which has values like "sha256",
"sha512", and pkg.foo (for now let's just call it pkg.foo), which
has values like "rsa", "dsa", "ecdsa", etc...
I haven't seen any reason yet why that's not a rational thing to do.
If it is a rational thing to do, then I'm suggesting that pkg.foo
actually be called pkg.sigalg. Having these two pieces which, to me
at least, seem orthogonal, stored in separate places and then
combined makes more sense to me than storing x^2 long strings.
Not to confuse the matter further, but I thought that we already had a
longstanding proposal for how to encode the hashing algorithms used to
identify package content.
https://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=8
Note that that's for content hash. While it would be nice if the content
hash and signature hashes aligned, that is not necessarily the case.
That's one reason per Tim's suggestion we'll actually be using
pkg.sig_hashalg. Note that the issue of collisions isn't one that
matters to us in this use case.
Brock
-j
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
