From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Scott Chacon <scott@gitbutler.net>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] tree-sha256: hash the contents of a tree with SHA-256
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2026 08:45:53 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqtsn4yuku.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261002081846.25144-2-scott@gitbutler.net> (Scott Chacon's message of "Fri, 2 Oct 2026 10:18:43 +0200")
Scott Chacon <scott@gitbutler.net> writes:
> Add a way to compute a SHA-256 digest of the contents of a tree that
> doesn't depend on the object format, so that it can be put in the
> signed payload. Each blob in the tree, recursively, becomes one record,
> and the digest is SHA-256 over the records sorted by path:
>
> <hex sha256 of content> SP <path> NUL
Would three trees, one records a blob with a single word "hello" at
a path as an executable regular file, another records the same blob
at the same path but as a non-executable regular file, and the third
records a symbolic link whose target is "hello", hash to the same
result? Should they?
> +static int hash_tree(struct repository *r, const struct object_id *oid,
> + const char *prefix, struct oid_array *chain,
> + struct walk *walk, unsigned char *digest)
> +{
> + const struct git_hash_algo *sha256 = &hash_algos[GIT_HASH_SHA256];
> + struct git_hash_ctx outer;
> + struct collect c = { 0 };
> + struct pathspec pathspec = { 0 };
> + struct strbuf value = STRBUF_INIT;
> + struct tree *tree;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + tree = repo_parse_tree_indirect(r, oid);
> + if (!tree)
> + return error(_("unable to read tree for %s in %s"),
> + oid_to_hex(oid), *prefix ? prefix : ".");
> + if (read_tree(r, tree, &pathspec, collect_entry, &c))
> + return error(_("unable to read tree %s"),
> + oid_to_hex(&tree->object.oid));
> + QSORT(c.items, c.nr, record_cmp);
I am somewhat torn but moderately against this sorting there. If
we have two tree objects that would result in the same checkout,
but one is corrupt in such a way that whose entries are not sorted
correctly, we want them to hash to a different value to signal that,
don't we?
> + git_hash_init(&outer, sha256);
> + for (size_t i = 0; i < c.nr; i++) {
> + struct record *rec = &c.items[i];
> +
> + strbuf_reset(&value);
> + if (!rec->submodule) {
> + struct git_hash_ctx ctx;
> + unsigned char blob_digest[GIT_MAX_RAWSZ];
> + enum object_type type;
> + size_t size;
> + void *data;
> +
> + data = odb_read_object(r->objects, &rec->oid, &type, &size);
> + if (!data || type != OBJ_BLOB) {
> + free(data);
> + ret = error(_("unable to read blob %s for %s%s"),
> + oid_to_hex(&rec->oid), prefix, rec->path);
> + break;
> + }
> + git_hash_init(&ctx, sha256);
> + git_hash_update(&ctx, data, size);
> + git_hash_final(blob_digest, &ctx);
> + free(data);
> + strbuf_addstr(&value, hash_to_hex_algop(blob_digest, sha256));
This forces us to read the inflated blob contents as a whole in-core
before we hash. I wonder if we can use the streaming interface like
how archive-{tar,zip}.c uses odb_stream_from_object() to read the
contents in smaller chunks? Instead of writing the contents out
like they do, we would instead hash the bytes here.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-02 15:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-02 8:18 [RFC PATCH 0/4] sign a SHA-256 digest of the tree in commits and tags Scott Chacon
2026-10-02 8:18 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] tree-sha256: hash the contents of a tree with SHA-256 Scott Chacon
2026-10-02 15:45 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2026-10-02 8:18 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] tag: add --hash=sha256 to sign a tree-sha256 header Scott Chacon
2026-10-02 15:49 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-02 8:18 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] commit: " Scott Chacon
2026-10-02 8:18 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] gpg: add gpg.treeHash to sign a tree-sha256 header by default Scott Chacon
2026-10-02 15:52 ` [RFC PATCH 0/4] sign a SHA-256 digest of the tree in commits and tags Junio C Hamano
2026-10-02 19:06 ` brian m. carlson
2026-10-05 9:32 ` Scott Chacon
2026-10-05 12:41 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2026-10-05 14:16 ` Scott Chacon
2026-10-05 22:57 ` brian m. carlson
2026-10-06 13:36 ` Johannes Schindelin
2026-10-06 16:16 ` Kristoffer Haugsbakk
2026-10-06 21:55 ` brian m. carlson
2026-10-06 22:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-10-06 23:40 ` brian m. carlson
2026-10-06 9:00 ` Christian Couder
2026-10-06 22:26 ` brian m. carlson
2026-10-07 12:26 ` Christian Couder
2026-10-07 21:07 ` brian m. carlson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqtsn4yuku.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=scott@gitbutler.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox