Re: How safe are signed git tags? Only as safe as SHA-1 or somehow safer?
- From
brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
- Date
- Nov 25, 2014, 11:07 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20141125110711.GF28310@vauxhall.crustytoothpaste.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <CACsJy8BMNXUinfK=YcJPkx98tYv_e40N0_mqqnzMLxDN6hkruA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 08:16:15AM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
Show 12 quoted lines
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote: > > Is there a plan for upgrading to a better hash function in the future? > > (E.g., should it become an urgent need.) > > > > What are the roadblocks to adoption of a replacement hash function? > > Just documenting this would go a long way towards making it possible > > to upgrade some day. > > The biggest obstacle is the assumption of SHA-1 everywhere in the > source code (e.g. assume the object name always takes 20 bytes). Brian > started on cleaning that up [1] but I think it's stalled. Then we need > to deal with upgrade path for SHA-1 repos.
Yes, it is stalled. It ended up being a Herculean task, so when I pick up the patch series again, I'll probably submit changes in chunks to avoid the huge amount of code churn required. I feel the list and Junio in particular will appreciate that more.
-- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187