Re: [PATCH v2 10/13] Add a base implementation of SHA-256 support

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

 



On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 1:31 AM brian m. carlson
<sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 04:59:12PM +0200, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> >  On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 4:23 AM brian m. carlson
> > <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.  Recently,
> > > we decided to pick SHA-256 as NewHash.
> > >
> > > Add a basic implementation of SHA-256 based off libtomcrypt, which is in
> > > the public domain.  Optimize it and restructure it to meet our coding
> > > standards.  Place it in a directory called "sha256" where it and any
> > > future implementations can live so as to avoid a proliferation of
> > > implementation directories.
> > >
> > > Wire up SHA-256 in the list of hash algorithms, and add a test that the
> > > algorithm works correctly.
> > >
> > > Note that with this patch, it is still not possible to switch to using
> > > SHA-256 in Git.  Additional patches are needed to prepare the code to
> > > handle a larger hash algorithm and further test fixes are needed.
> >
> > At some point I assume SHA-256 will become functional and be part of a
> > git release without all file formats updated to support multiple
> > hashes. Should we somehow discourage the user from using it because it
> > will break when all file formats are finally updated?
>
> In order to activate SHA-256 in the codebase, currently you need a patch
> to force it on.  Otherwise, the code is simply inert and does nothing
> (other than in the test-tool).  I've included the patch below so you can
> see what it does (or if you want to play around with it).
>
> Without this patch, Git remains fully SHA-1 and can't access any of the
> SHA-256 code.  I have some very preliminary patches that do wire up
> extensions.objectFormat (branch object-id-part15 [sic]) but I haven't
> picked them up in a while.  (I need to finish test fixes first.)

Ah, I thought that extensions.objectFormat and setup changes already
landed (I think I saw that series on this list). Sorry for the noise.

-- 
Duy



[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]

  Powered by Linux