From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shawn Pearce Subject: Re: [RFC] adding support for md5 Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:14:53 -0400 Message-ID: <20060823041453.GA25796@spearce.org> References: <20060821204430.GA2700@tuatara.stupidest.org> <7vr6z9s376.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Aug 23 06:15:56 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GFk9h-0002wW-FX for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:15:53 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932341AbWHWEPb (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:15:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932346AbWHWEPb (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:15:31 -0400 Received: from corvette.plexpod.net ([64.38.20.226]:52893 "EHLO corvette.plexpod.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932341AbWHWEPb (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:15:31 -0400 Received: from cpe-74-70-48-173.nycap.res.rr.com ([74.70.48.173] helo=asimov.home.spearce.org) by corvette.plexpod.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1GFk9J-0008Gc-By; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:15:29 -0400 Received: by asimov.home.spearce.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E568B20FB7D; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:14:53 -0400 (EDT) To: Junio C Hamano Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vr6z9s376.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - corvette.plexpod.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - spearce.org X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > I personally am not interested in making this configurable at > all. The hashcmp() change on the other hand to abstract out 20 > was a good preparation, if we ever want to switch to longer > hashes we would know where to look. What about all of those memcpy(a, b, 20)'s? :-) I can see us wanting to support say SHA-128 or SHA-256 in a few years. Especially as processors get faster and better attacks are developed against SHA-1 such that its no longer really the best trade-off hash function available. -- Shawn.