Re: Kernel SCM saga..

[Junio C Hamano]

>>>>> "DL" == David Lang <dlang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

DL> just wanted to point out that recent news shows that sha1 isn't as
DL> good as it was thought to be (far easier to deliberatly create
DL> collisions then it should be)

I suspect there is no need to do so...

  Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504090902170.1267@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>
  Subject: Re: Kernel SCM saga..
  Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 09:16:22 -0700 (PDT)

  ...

                  Linus 

  (*) yeah, yeah, I know about the current theoretical case, and I don't
  care. Not only is it theoretical, the way my objects are packed you'd have
  to not just generate the same SHA1 for it, it would have to _also_ still
  be a valid zlib object _and_ get the header to match the "type + length"  
  of object part. IOW, the object validity checks are actually even stricter
  than just "sha1 matches".

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/