From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE08917BB4 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2024 17:11:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727284285; cv=none; b=oUiJb9Z+sHfZXViR5BaAfyMTWkHEuLdxkCNc2A0wOevfkBn/COxPh8JQ6ze5jbH+aK9RKn/aQdp1CiwD4bkN1EAO2h+eQ04PXwZzrhB3EH3lDgk+xmeMrqfDk6b+gVE2ZotUOyXd6ao/YoXehm+xBYttPGvjREbtQJDUHZyxX/o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727284285; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QNtciOVJO5Xxpe15CbnLlMKJ3ntyBzh+4CG8tx3wSMw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ZN1I1n+37efQU6pCjrCo8Hy0MFtZLfYszyjJwAkZ2lOxWd2RCfByO8LkImuNLZtVFipRxNFDfmI3/yHM+kXtH0J404PbqMI3jZN82RtzVMN5slpG/WAikIcQbSzS7u9BGQTCyfWttIisZHpINFhT3+YHIy1yzNmS2uaJBYZR/6c= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=UrF84Obs; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="UrF84Obs" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17C32D358; Wed, 25 Sep 2024 13:11:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=QNtciOVJO5Xxpe15CbnLlMKJ3ntyBzh+4CG8tx 3wSMw=; b=UrF84Obs8F+7qIRZGD0ChkRA/h4ARdi3mKHWGcVViG2FDk/XOK9rjn ahST/r2fsTPDsoRgewTM/BsniOUEmEBaWC1OZYUwI2AWyLxZyLFupNJcJs4ME/Bu qqHkgqwY8muOnb45fqduGBFuKXR8tAB5z0T9l20iVj+d/9oj2JmWI= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7DF22D357; Wed, 25 Sep 2024 13:11:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.108.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0591A2D356; Wed, 25 Sep 2024 13:11:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gitster@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Elijah Newren Cc: Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org, Jeff King , "brian m. carlson" , Patrick Steinhardt Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/8] hash.h: support choosing a separate SHA-1 for non-cryptographic uses In-Reply-To: (Elijah Newren's message of "Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:58:47 -0700") References: Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 10:11:20 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3013BE76-7B61-11EF-B839-9B0F950A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Elijah Newren writes: >> - these callers are safe to use the fast (and potentially non-collision >> + these callers are safe to use the unsafe (and potentially non-collision >> detecting) SHA-1 implementation. > > Is the "and potentially non-collision detecting" parenthetical comment > still needed now that it's referred to as unsafe? Even if we keep > most of it, maybe we should drop the "and"? I appreciate a careful reading like this. The use of "unsafe" becomes easier to understandable if we lost "potentially", e.g. are safe to use the unsafe SHA-1 implementation that does not attempt to detect collisions. >> - , and generate the resulting "clone" much faster, in only 11.597 seconds >> + , and generate the resulting "clone" much unsafeer, in only 11.597 seconds > > This fast->unsafe translation isn't so good; this one should be undone. Or "much less safe", but that is not something we want to brag about ;-) > ... > This patch was also fast->unsafe translations; I identified two above > that I think should get some tweaks. Thanks for carefully reading.