Re: [PATCH] Put sha1dc on a diet

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > That said, I think that it would be lovely to just default to
> > USE_SHA1DC and just put the whole attack behind us. Yes, it's slower.
> > No, it doesn't really seem to matter that much in practice.
> 
> Yes.  It would be a very good goal.

So let me get this straight: not only do we now implicitly want to bump
the required C compiler to C99 without any grace period worth mentioning
[*1*], we are also all of a sudden no longer worried about a double digit
percentage drop of speed [*2*]?

Puzzled,
Johannes

Footnote *1*: I know, it is easy to forget that some developers cannot
choose their tools, or even their hardware. In the past, we seemed to take
appropriate care, though.

Footnote *2*: With real-world repositories of notable size, that
performance regression hurts. A lot. We just spent time to get the speed
of SHA-1 down by a couple percent and it was a noticeable improvement here.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]