Re: [PATCH 0/2] help: include SHA build options in version info

From: Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 31, 2025, 18:17 UTC
Message-ID: <4mivlvpsppq62qrotv7dnrib3izxmhf6zlqga33dm6olvge4tz@z725ju4cshv5>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD1oYmr=2ZCOVVjk6NbSCtA1Zv+3jy26jSSwHuOfdS6BQA@mail.gmail.com>

On 25/03/29 09:58AM, Christian Couder wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 6:05 PM Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Regarding "unsafe-SHA-1", I wonder if we should use a different name in
> > the printed build options that sounds a little less scary. I was
> > thinking maybe "fast-SHA-1" and document its meaning appropriately. I'm
> > interested to know if anyone has thoughts on this.
> 
> Maybe we could use just "SHA-1" if a single algorithm is used for
> everything, and both "SHA-1 for crypto" and "SHA-1 for non-crypto"
> otherwise.

Maybe we could leave "SHA-1:" alone and when unsafe is set use "non-crypto-SHA-1" instead of "unsafe-SHA-1"? It's a little wordy, but probably not too bad.

> Related to this I wonder if we should warn in some ways if a non
> collision detection algorithm is used for crypto. For example we could
> print "SHA-1: OpenSSL (No collision detection!!!)" instead of just
> "SHA-1: OpenSSL". And yeah that should be documented.

Elsewhere in this thread it was suggested that we use the internal symbol names instead of coming up with new human readable names [1]. I'll append this warning to the appropriate options as well though and document it.

Thanks, -Justin

[1]: <xmqq8qoodq5u.fsf@gitster.g>