Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Kernel SCM saga.. | From | Junio C Hamano <> | Date | Sun, 10 Apr 2005 02:40:02 -0700 |
| |
>>>>> "DL" == David Lang <dlang@digitalinsight.com> 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@ppc970.osdl.org> From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |