From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: Congratulations! we have got hash function screwed up Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:06:53 -0800 Message-ID: <41EE859D.3020305@namesys.com> References: <77912E9FD42896419D1CEF15E1C397A58AFCF1@london.jaguarfreightservices.local> <20041230235911.4911a20c.hihone@bigpond.net.au> <41D42F93.9060107@namesys.com> <2f4958ff050118131714f5411c@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <2f4958ff050118131714f5411c@mail.gmail.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed" To: =?UTF-8?B?R3J6ZWdvcnogSmHFm2tpZXdpY3o=?= , Edward Shishkin Cc: Matthias Andree , hihone@bigpond.net.au, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Grzegorz Ja=C5=9Bkiewicz wrote: >On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:40:51 -0800, Hans Reiser wrote: > =20 > >>Fixing hash collisions in V3 to do them the way V4 does them would >>create more bugs and user disruption than the current bug we have all >>lived with for 5 years until now. If someone thinks it is a small >>change to fix it, send me a patch. Better by far to fix bugs in V4, >>which is pretty stable these days. >> =20 >> > >As I understeand, tea hash is based on tea (tiny encryption aglo), >which was the cause of xbox-linux sucess, and few others. >Pleas consider updating it to use xxtea algo. I know, it won't be >backward compatbile, but well. >Where is about all the others, I don't use them, and for me tea is the >only resonable hash to use on systems where I have very much great >number of files per directory (to name it, Maildirs). >Never had such problem myself, every hash function has a weaknes. >Nothing new. But providing another, much stronger hash, or correct tea >hash to use xxtea, would be something good indeed. > > =20 > Edward, please look into whether we should use xxtea in Reiser4, and=20 make a recommendation to me. We aren't changing V3, it is stable and I=20 want to leave it that way. Hans