| 1 |
On 2021.07.25 00:12, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I don't understand. Isn't it the same motion we put down just 2 months |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> ago [1]? Or is this something new? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> If this isn't something new, what has changed since May [2]? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> To remember: Currently we have two different hashes for every |
| 11 |
> distfile. |
| 12 |
> If we are going to throw this data away, we should really have good |
| 13 |
> reasons to do that. Like said during that council meeting, BLAKE2B and |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> SHA512 are competing hashes. What's wrong with having a backup plan |
| 16 |
> even |
| 17 |
> for a very unlikely scenario, that BLAKE2B will get broken? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> It's not like SHA512 is requiring any additional deps which are |
| 20 |
> unmaintained or something like that. SHA has even hardware |
| 21 |
> acceleration |
| 22 |
> support in modern systems. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> In addition it is even more likely that you will find SHA checksum |
| 25 |
> files |
| 26 |
> with upstream release tarballs than BLAKE2B files. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Remember that verify-sig.eclass I criticized last year? Of course some |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> scenarios I outlined were very unlikely and I never expected that I |
| 31 |
> can |
| 32 |
> run around in near future saying "I told you". But in January 2021, |
| 33 |
> CVE-2021-3345 happened in libgcrypt... |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> So again: Why should we throw the data we currently have away and put |
| 36 |
> Gentoo unnecessarily at risk that we will end up without hashes |
| 37 |
> because |
| 38 |
> the only hash algorithm we used became broken and given that we will |
| 39 |
> be |
| 40 |
> unable to re-hash every file in a timely manner (remember how long it |
| 41 |
> took to get a BLAKE2B hash for every file)? |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> See also: |
| 46 |
> ========= |
| 47 |
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/784710 |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> [2] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20210509.txt |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> -- |
| 53 |
> Regards, |
| 54 |
> Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 55 |
> fpr: C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
I'm in the "if it's not broken don't fix it" school. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
The original proposal uses the word 'negligible' twice when describing the |
| 62 |
the benefits, which makes it sound like busywork. However, it's not me |
| 63 |
doing the work, so my opinion count for very little. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
-- |
| 66 |
Regards, |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
Roy Bamford |
| 69 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 70 |
elections |
| 71 |
gentoo-ops |
| 72 |
forum-mods |
| 73 |
arm64 |
Archives