On Thu, Jun 15 2017, Jeff King jotted:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 08:05:18PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:30:46PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> > Footnote *1*: SHA-256, as all hash functions whose output is essentially
>> > the entire internal state, are susceptible to a so-called "length
>> > extension attack", where the hash of a secret+message can be used to
>> > generate the hash of secret+message+piggyback without knowing the secret.
>> > This is not the case for Git: only visible data are hashed. The type of
>> > attacks Git has to worry about is very different from the length extension
>> > attacks, and it is highly unlikely that that weakness of SHA-256 leads to,
>> > say, a collision attack.
>>
>> What do the experts think or SHA512/256, which completely removes the
>> concerns over length extension attack? (which I'd argue is better than
>> sweeping them under the carpet)
>
> I don't think it's sweeping them under the carpet. Git does not use the
> hash as a MAC, so length extension attacks aren't a thing (and even if
> we later wanted to use the same algorithm as a MAC, the HMAC
> construction is a well-studied technique for dealing with it).
>
> That said, SHA-512 is typically a little faster than SHA-256 on 64-bit
> platforms. I don't know if that will change with the advent of hardware
> instructions oriented towards SHA-256.
Quoting my own
CACBZZX7JRA2niwt9wsGAxnzS+gWS8hTUgzWm8NaY1gs87o8xVQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx sent
~2 weeks ago to the list:
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> 4. When choosing a hash function, people may argue about performance.
> It would be useful for run some benchmarks for git (running
> the test suite, t/perf tests, etc) using a variety of hash
> functions as input to such a discussion.
To the extent that such benchmarks matter, it seems prudent to heavily
weigh them in favor of whatever seems to be likely to be the more
common hash function going forward, since those are likely to get
faster through future hardware acceleration.
E.g. Intel announced Goldmont last year which according to one SHA-1
implementation improved from 9.5 cycles per byte to 2.7 cpb[1]. They
only have acceleration for SHA-1 and SHA-256[2]
1. https://github.com/weidai11/cryptopp/issues/139#issuecomment-264283385
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldmont
Maybe someone else knows of better numbers / benchmarks, but such a
reduction in CBP likely makes it faster than SHA-512.