On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 05:53:39AM -0400, George Spelvin wrote: > > Basically, it offers security similar to teahash with a faster, and better > studied, primitive designed specifically for this application. > > I'm thinking of turning this into a patch for ext2utils and fs/ext4. > > Could I ask what the general level of interest is? On a scale of "hell, > no, not more support burden!" to "thank you, I've been meaning to find > time to add that!" I'm certainly not against adding a new hash function. The reality is that it would be quite a while before we could turn it on by default, because of the backwards compatibility concerns. The question I would ask is whether we can show an anctual performance improvement with the hash being used in situ. Let's give it the best possible chance of making a difference; let's assume a RAM disk with a very metadata intensive benchmark, with journalling turned off. What sort of difference would we see, either in terms of system CPU time, wall clock time, etc.? The results of such a benchmark would certainly make a difference in how aggressively we might try to phase in a new hash algorithm. Cheers, - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
