From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.153]) (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 29868146013 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 15:39:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.153 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736350781; cv=none; b=pcAq6ydH7vV2Won638cCdKSQJxv5Xi2GEiW2pehefcxULXJWdLkAs5FLQ3uWafsziP45AZhmWwu+kDl1eU/Rl8e5G4FvOFpszlju97CuedI0dcZARK3QAsd3kJCRRdIRkqP731B7bkgMcSFFqCRd5aPonrknTP6nD11i2Qgsla8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736350781; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xlixqjVuQnp2eDFxrYYOsULIRt1IY9cQu3psbhZd3KU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=O/djFExJXvr1LzyUM0J3KZtRDwyGUfX62XWKHgqDvASvfU0c0RwiYMi/h1wLu1gD26HOjdxrQZcaQxgR68iJwhXs/3iO1k0CC6+eXkif+aaeQ3esSapAKbUbmEsYJgdIfGcE1aErr/chIk47y4Z5rrpCVNEnukBiDt2TkS4v+to= 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=e72CZv5v; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=ZMGlKSmx; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.153 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="e72CZv5v"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="ZMGlKSmx" Received: from phl-compute-09.internal (phl-compute-09.phl.internal [10.202.2.49]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30051254017F; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 10:39:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from phl-frontend-02 ([10.202.2.161]) by phl-compute-09.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 08 Jan 2025 10:39:39 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1736350779; x=1736437179; bh=NRfzR2IB9U rMyyrUSwuCT8mgNscYR3I9DdDjxQ3i/m0=; b=e72CZv5v0igUMCMfDxuxXKcTro ME9Eo4xhXXriO9k21JB3opFqJZYiMX8IHv2iO2dkau/pZBtwk6vhNEMkmf2MAqLZ HiqAqG6nAgMmHBftxeLNarvm7rliDsvCLjF3/itZ/SlR5ljj5ANBOpov6ac3K+oy E5R7DBbOzGW4V5Mi59AbynvJOzEzEj0c1O/AnIAYLoGeLosWh09nuOexvDR9/ouN 1mN7hZFlWM/LBckSbp0X2qoslA4wC43U0IEZk6x+9TLOCp4hU3eDY7RUoVRSFIUg Qny2Hy/uEUF+YYVc8w+XBcYuPo5Tyey90KPQ9A4tnESmLzfMNR40N+tjn0rA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1736350779; x=1736437179; bh=NRfzR2IB9UrMyyrUSwuCT8mgNscYR3I9DdD jxQ3i/m0=; b=ZMGlKSmxo32PSCb+EpjtkfowIBVmEsIH/S/LL646/s2BLQOf2jH cL1pqlb2i+p+iCC4abPQQbsh1QUctqTjj0uMJGoz17losO1iz6lHuEfT1QgUKndj cIGTbVZBHyHc9S0ZKGNz5RfuvflmhC4NI8pZt8ecjmzVFOv/7Grd3IXlXa1WamWE DASfYmwA//4CSG3pGdiCKQXtzAk5Uz4IAQ9pGvlARr3rGoGE8Lg5KgGurq8Ca+Z6 FTzsRLKlU4G/zUe28dox2UMW77mdausdP4f2bhsd5jWGLWo1HMYUtQ2mlhsDyNlE 4kQqbQFVdoCYDJ/ffBMhaIco2CS+7Q+s+mg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefuddrudeggedgjeelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfu rfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnh htshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttdertden ucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogi drtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfeevteetjeehueegffelvdetieevffeufeej leeuffetiefggfeftdfhfeeigeeinecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrg hmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomhdpnhgspghrtghp thhtohepgedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepphhssehpkhhsrdhimh dprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohep rhgrnhgurghllhdrsggvtghkvghrsehnvgigsghrihgughgvrdgtrgdprhgtphhtthhope hgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 8 Jan 2025 10:39:38 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Randall S. Becker" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] reftable/stack: accept insecure random bytes In-Reply-To: (Patrick Steinhardt's message of "Wed, 8 Jan 2025 07:51:41 +0100") References: <20250107-b4-pks-reftable-csprng-v1-0-6109a54a8756@pks.im> <20250107-b4-pks-reftable-csprng-v1-2-6109a54a8756@pks.im> Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2025 07:39:37 -0800 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 Patrick Steinhardt writes: >> It may still make sense to drop the first hunk, and consider how to >> proceed when you further want to reduce the unnecessary dependencies >> for external users of the reftable library, though. Are there >> correctness implications if git_rand() in format_name() yields non >> random results (like, always using "rnd = 0" instead of calling >> git_rand())? I seriously hope not. And if there is no correctness >> implications, perhaps we can replace it with rand() or even constant >> "0"? > > No, there aren't any implications on correctness in that case. Sure, the > randomized delays not being randomized can lead to more contention. But > even when the randomized suffix for tables is deterministic we wouldn't > have an issue as the files are still distinguished by their update > indices. OK, so they both can be turned into a simple rand() that is expected to work more reliably especially on more exotic systems (meaning: the ability the system providers can test their rand() is much better than our ability to test our git_rand() there)? It would help us solve the immediate issue reported, while removing one git specific function from the reftable library? Thanks.