From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF4B720323 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:21:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752179AbdCQAVo (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:21:44 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:45579 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751483AbdCQAVn (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:21:43 -0400 Received: (qmail 12448 invoked by uid 109); 17 Mar 2017 00:14:20 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:14:20 +0000 Received: (qmail 1081 invoked by uid 111); 17 Mar 2017 00:14:31 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:14:31 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:14:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:14:16 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Linus Torvalds , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Re-integrate sha1dc Message-ID: <20170317001416.bthqvjbf554zhrj5@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <20170316220456.m4yz2kbvzv6waokn@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20170316221044.ij5yuifmohktn6cl@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 03:23:59PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I am wondering if we should queue another one for .travis.yml on top > to force use of USE_SHA1DC=YesPlease during the tests. I expect > that we'd be encouraging its use for ordinary users without any > specific needs in the release notes in 2.13 release. I don't think it would buy us much. There's not really any way for this build to interact with the rest of the code in any interesting way, so either it works as a SHA-1 implementation or it doesn't. If you just want it exercised, I'll say that it's powering all of github.com right now. I did wonder if we should ship with it as the default (instead of openssl). It's definitely slower, but maybe widespread safety is a good thing. OTOH, I think we have a fair bit of time before we see any real-life collisions, just given the time and expense of generating them. -Peff