git@vger.kernel.org list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc: "Stefan Beller" <sbeller@google.com>,
	"Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>,
	"Phillip Wood" <phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk>,
	"git@vger.kernel.org" <git@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 15:45:24 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170606224524.GC21733@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1.1706070008440.171564@virtualbox>

Hi,

Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Johannes Schindelin wrote:

>>> Maybe we should call out a specific month (or even a longer period) during
>>> which we try to push toward that new hash function, and focus more on
>>> those tasks (and on critical bug fixes, if any) than anything else.
>>
>> Thanks for offering. ;-)
>
> Undoubtedly my lack of command of the English language is to blame for
> this misunderstanding.
>
> By no means did I try to indicate that I am ready to accept the
> responsibility of working toward a new hash dumped on me.

It was a joke.  More seriously, I do appreciate your questions to get
this discussion going.

[...]
> 3) the only person who could make that call is Junio

I strongly disagree with this.

> 4) we still have the problem that there is no cryptography expert among
> those who in the Git project are listened to

*shrug* I still don't know what you are suggesting here.  Are you
saying we should find a cryptography expert to pay?  Or do you have
other specific suggestions of how to attract them?

>> How did you get the impression that their opinion had no impact? We have
>> been getting feedback about the choice of hash function both on and off
>> list from a variety of people, some indisputably security experts.
>> Sometimes the best one can do is to just listen.
>
> I did get the impression by talking at length to a cryptography expert who
> successfully resisted any suggestions to get involved in the Git mailing
> list.

I know of other potential Git contributors that have resisted getting
involved in the Git mailing list, too.  I still don't know what you
are suggesting here.  Forgive me for being dense.

> There were also accounts floating around on Twitter that a certain
> cryptography expert who dared to mention already back in 2005 how
> dangerous it would be to hardcode SHA-1 into Git was essentially shown the
> finger, and I cannot fault him for essentially saying "I told you so"
> publicly.

I think there is a concrete suggestion embedded here: when discussions
go in an unproductive direction, my usual practice has been to keep
away from them.  This means that to a casual observer there can appear
to be a consensus that doesn't really exist.  We need to do better
than that: when a prominent contributor like Linus and people newer to
the project are emphatically dismissing the security impact of using a
broken hash function, others in the project need to speak up to make
it clear that those are not the actual opinions of the project.

To put it another way: "The standard you walk past is the standard you
accept".  I have failed at this.

It is a very hard problem to solve, but it is worth solving.

> In my mind, it would have made sense to ask well-respected cryptographers
> about their opinions and then try to figure out a consensus among them (as
> opposed to what I saw so far, a lot of enthusastic talk by developers with
> little standing in the cryptography community, mostly revolving around
> hash size and speed as opposed to security). And then try to implement
> that consensus in Git. Given my recent success rate with SHA-1 related
> concerns, I am unfortunately not the person who can bring that about.
>
> But maybe you are.

I think you are being a bit dismissive of both the work done so far
and the value of your own work.

I am happy to solicit more input from security researchers, though,
and your suggestion to do so is good advice.

Thanks and hope that helps,
Jonathan

  reply	other threads:[~2017-06-06 22:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-31 10:42 [PATCH 0/3] Add regression tests for recent rebase -i fixes Phillip Wood
2017-05-31 10:42 ` [PATCH 1/3] rebase -i: Add test for reflog message Phillip Wood
2017-06-01  2:00   ` Junio C Hamano
2017-05-31 10:42 ` [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output Phillip Wood
2017-05-31 19:02   ` Phillip Wood
2017-06-01  1:59     ` Junio C Hamano
2017-06-01 12:56   ` Johannes Schindelin
2017-06-01 23:40     ` Junio C Hamano
2017-06-01 23:47       ` Stefan Beller
2017-06-02 12:47         ` pushing for a new hash, was " Johannes Schindelin
2017-06-02 17:54           ` Jonathan Nieder
2017-06-02 18:05             ` Jonathan Nieder
2017-06-02 20:29             ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2017-06-15 10:38               ` Johannes Schindelin
2017-06-03  0:36             ` Junio C Hamano
2017-06-06 22:22             ` Johannes Schindelin
2017-06-06 22:45               ` Jonathan Nieder [this message]
2017-06-07  1:09                 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-06-07  2:18                   ` [PATCH] t4005: modernize style and drop hard coded sha1 Stefan Beller
2017-06-07 17:39                     ` Brandon Williams
2017-06-06 22:45               ` pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output Stefan Beller
2017-06-06 22:52                 ` Jonathan Nieder
2017-06-07  0:34                 ` Samuel Lijin
2017-06-07 14:47                 ` Johannes Schindelin
2017-06-07 16:53                   ` Stefan Beller
2017-06-07 10:47     ` Phillip Wood
2017-06-09 16:39       ` Junio C Hamano
2017-06-14 10:18         ` Phillip Wood
2017-06-14 12:51       ` Johannes Schindelin
2017-05-31 10:42 ` [PATCH 3/3] rebase: Add tests for console output with conflicting stash Phillip Wood
2017-06-14 10:24 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Add regression tests for rectent rebase -i fixes Phillip Wood
2017-06-14 10:24   ` [PATCH v2 1/3] rebase -i: Add test for reflog message Phillip Wood
2017-06-14 10:24   ` [PATCH v2 2/3] rebase: Add regression tests for console output Phillip Wood
2017-06-14 10:24   ` [PATCH v2 3/3] rebase: Add more " Phillip Wood
2017-06-14 20:35   ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Add regression tests for rectent rebase -i fixes Johannes Schindelin
2017-06-15 23:05   ` Junio C Hamano
2017-06-15 23:23     ` Junio C Hamano
2017-06-15 23:29       ` Junio C Hamano
2017-06-16 13:49         ` Johannes Schindelin
2017-06-16 18:43           ` Johannes Sixt
2017-06-16 21:05             ` Junio C Hamano
2017-06-19 19:45             ` Johannes Sixt
2017-06-19 20:02               ` Junio C Hamano
2017-06-19  9:49           ` Phillip Wood
2017-06-19 15:45             ` Junio C Hamano
2017-06-19  9:52         ` Phillip Wood
2017-06-19 17:56 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] Add regression tests for recent " Phillip Wood
2017-06-19 17:56   ` [PATCH v3 1/4] sequencer: print autostash messages to stderr Phillip Wood
2017-06-19 17:56   ` [PATCH v3 2/4] rebase -i: Add test for reflog message Phillip Wood
2017-06-19 17:56   ` [PATCH v3 3/4] rebase: Add regression tests for console output Phillip Wood
2017-06-19 17:56   ` [PATCH v3 4/4] rebase: Add more " Phillip Wood
2017-06-23  4:17   ` [PATCH v3 0/4] Add regression tests for recent rebase -i fixes Junio C Hamano
2017-06-23  5:07     ` Junio C Hamano
2017-06-23  9:53       ` Phillip Wood
2017-06-23 17:03         ` Junio C Hamano
2017-06-23 18:53           ` Junio C Hamano
2017-06-26  9:17             ` Phillip Wood
2017-06-23 19:01           ` Junio C Hamano
2017-06-26  9:23             ` Phillip Wood

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

  List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170606224524.GC21733@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com \
    --to=jrnieder@gmail.com \
    --cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
    --cc=avarab@gmail.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=phillip.wood@dunelm.org.uk \
    --cc=sbeller@google.com \
    --subject='Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output' \
    /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

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).