On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 02:27:51PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
The one reason why we *might* want to use SHA-3, BTW, is that it is a
radically different design from SHA-1 and SHA-2. And if there is a
crypto hash failure which is bad enough that the security of git would
be affected, there's a
Am 15.10.2012 20:34, schrieb Jeff King:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 07:47:09PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Elia Pinto gitter.spi...@gmail.com wrote:
Very clear analysis. Well written. Perhaps is it the time to update
http://git-scm.com/book/ch6-1.html
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:34:41PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
FWIW, I couldn't measure a performance difference for git log with and
without the following patch, which catches commits created with your
hash collision trick, but might be too strict:
diff --git a/commit.c b/commit.c
index
I seem to recall that there was at least some discussion at one point
about adding some extra fields to the commit object in a backwards
compatible way by adding it after the trailing NUL. We didn't end up
doing it, but I could see it being a useful thing nonetheless (for
example, we could
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Jeff King wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:58:06PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
I seem to recall that there was at least some discussion at one point
about adding some extra fields to the commit object in a backwards
compatible way by adding it after the trailing NUL. We
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:32:38AM -0700, da...@lang.hm wrote:
I don't see much point in it. If we want to add new backup pointers to
commit objects, it is very easy to do so by adding new header fields.
A much bigger problem is the other places we reference sha1s. The
obvious place is
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
A much bigger problem is the other places we reference sha1s. The
obvious place is trees, which have no room for backup pointers (either
in headers, or with a NUL trick).
This is a tangent (as I do not have anything particularly worth
adding on top of what have
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Elia Pinto gitter.spi...@gmail.com wrote:
Very clear analysis. Well written. Perhaps is it the time to update
http://git-scm.com/book/ch6-1.html (A SHORT NOTE ABOUT SHA-1) ?
Hope useful
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-1210.html
This would be concerning
2012/10/15 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Elia Pinto gitter.spi...@gmail.com wrote:
Very clear analysis. Well written. Perhaps is it the time to update
http://git-scm.com/book/ch6-1.html (A SHORT NOTE ABOUT SHA-1) ?
Hope useful
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 07:47:09PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Elia Pinto gitter.spi...@gmail.com wrote:
Very clear analysis. Well written. Perhaps is it the time to update
http://git-scm.com/book/ch6-1.html (A SHORT NOTE ABOUT SHA-1) ?
Hope
Hem , sha-3 i suppose, keccak, no ? But really is not so urgent as you
have already told .
Best
2012/10/15, Jeff King p...@peff.net:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 07:47:09PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Elia Pinto gitter.spi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Very
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 09:09:44PM +0200, Elia Pinto wrote:
Hem , sha-3 i suppose, keccak, no ? But really is not so urgent as you
have already told .
It depends. Read what Schneier wrote right before they announced the
SHA-3 winner:
https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-1210.html#2
There's
12 matches
Mail list logo
