Re: [RFC PATCH 09/12] Add a base implementation of SHA-256 support

2018-08-29 Thread brian m. carlson
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:32:08AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 29 2018, brian m. carlson wrote: > > > SHA-1 is weak and we need to transition to a new hash function. For > > some time, we have referred to this new function as NewHash. > > > > The selection criteria for

Re: [RFC PATCH 09/12] Add a base implementation of SHA-256 support

2018-08-29 Thread Derrick Stolee
On 8/28/2018 8:58 PM, brian m. carlson wrote: SHA-256 is somewhat slower to compute than SHA-1 in software. However, since our default SHA-1 implementation is collision-detecting, a reasonable cryptographic library implementation of SHA-256 will actually be faster than SHA-256. Nit: do you

Re: [RFC PATCH 09/12] Add a base implementation of SHA-256 support

2018-08-29 Thread Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
On Wed, Aug 29 2018, brian m. carlson wrote: > SHA-1 is weak and we need to transition to a new hash function. For > some time, we have referred to this new function as NewHash. > > The selection criteria for NewHash specify that it should (a) be 256 > bits in length, (b) have high quality

[RFC PATCH 09/12] Add a base implementation of SHA-256 support

2018-08-28 Thread brian m. carlson
SHA-1 is weak and we need to transition to a new hash function. For some time, we have referred to this new function as NewHash. The selection criteria for NewHash specify that it should (a) be 256 bits in length, (b) have high quality implementations available, (c) should match Git's needs in