Re: [RFC] adding support for md5

Chris Wedgwood [off-list ref] writes:

On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 01:50:32PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

quoted

I can see the point of configurable hashes, but it would be for a
stronger hash than sha1, not for a (much) weaker one.

Why any configuration option at all?  What in practice does it really
buy?

I personally am not interested in making this configurable at
all.  The hashcmp() change on the other hand to abstract out 20
was a good preparation, if we ever want to switch to longer
hashes we would know where to look.

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

I personally am not interested in making this configurable at
all.  The hashcmp() change on the other hand to abstract out 20
was a good preparation, if we ever want to switch to longer
hashes we would know where to look.

What about all of those memcpy(a, b, 20)'s?  :-)

I can see us wanting to support say SHA-128 or SHA-256 in a few
years.  Especially as processors get faster and better attacks are
developed against SHA-1 such that its no longer really the best
trade-off hash function available.

-- 
Shawn.