On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 09:52:20PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > > To summarize the discussion that's been had in addition to the above, > Ævar has also stated a preference for SHA-256 and I would prefer BLAKE2b > over SHA-256 over SHA3-256, although any of them would be fine. > > Are there other contributors who have a strong opinion? Are there > things I can do to help us coalesce around an option? Overall, I prefer SHA-256. I mentioned this at the contributor summit - so this may have been captured in the notes. But if not, when I look at this from the perspective of my day job at Notorious Big Software Company, we would prefer SHA-256 due to its performance characteristics and the availability of hardware acceleration. We think about git object ids in a few different ways: Obviously we use git as a version control system - we have a significant investment in hosting repositories (for both internal Microsoft teams and our external customers). What may be less obvious is that often, git blob ids are used as fingerprints: on a typical Windows machine, you don't have the command-line hash functions (md5sum and friends), but every developer has git installed. So we end up calculating git object ids in places within the development pipeline that are beyond the scope of just version control. Not to dwell too much on implementation details, but this is especially advantageous for us in (say) labs where we can ensure that particular hardware is available to speed this up as necessary. Switching gears, if I look at this from the perspective of the libgit2 project, I would also prefer SHA-256 or SHA3 over blake2b. To support blake2b, we'd have to include - and support - that code ourselves. But to support SHA-256, we would simply use the system's crypto libraries that we already take a dependecy on (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG, or SecureTransport). All of those support SHA-256 and none of them include support for blake2b. That means if there's a problem with (say) OpenSSL's SHA-256 implementation, then it will be fixed by their vendor. If there's a problem with libb2, then that's now my responsibility. This is not to suggest that one library is of higher or lower quality than another. And surely we would try to use the same blake2b library that git itself is using to minimize some of this risk (so that at least we're all in the same boat and can leverage each other's communications to users) but even then, there will be inevitable drift between our vendored dependencies and the upstream code. You can see this in action in xdiff: git's xdiff has deviated from upstream, and libgit2 has taken git's and ours has deviated from that. Cheers- -ed
