On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 4:57 AM, Alan Barrett <apb_at_cequrux.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> The simple fact is that we're going to be running around with md5
>>> checksums in hand for a long while. OR we double-compute, and I'm not
>>> willing to burn that much CPU to satisfy somebody's misguided
>>> preconception about md5 collisions.
>>
>> What "misguided preconception" did you see in David Glasser's
>> description of the problem? It seems like quite a real problem to me.
>
> That unintended collisions can occur or an attacker is going to
> somehow cause problems for an svn repository by using md5 collisions
> against it. That's how the discussion started (somewhat on the mailing
> list, and definitely on IRC).
>
> Later, the idea of researchers surfaced, and that they'd be trying to
> store file pairs with the same hash. I grant your scenario is valid.
>
> We *still* have all the problems that md5 is fully-intertwined in our
> code. I'm still not willing to do double-checksums and kill millions
> of coders for a few researchers who could simply tar their candidate
> pairs together, or gzip them. Yes, that's the brutal truth :-P ... the
> researchers need to use workarounds, and the millions get a fast
> product.
It's still a regression vs 1.5. Can you at least acknowledge that?
Also, if double-hash-computation is such a horrible thing, then why is
it OK for fs_base to use it but not fs_fs?
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-10-22 18:32:59 CEST