4 ms·
I was thinking collision due to a new commit causing a hash that equals an already existing hash. Just by chance, but in the course of normal use.
by mongol 4y ago
I was thinking collision due to a new commit causing a hash that equals an already existing hash. Just by chance, but in the course of normal use.
- Groxx 4y agoYeah. I think it's still "probably has happened", but it is very very easy to work around: just try again. The timestamp (and thus the hash) will have changed. Or if I'm wrong about the timestamp being part of the computed checksum: add a space to your commit message. Very simple.
- mongol 4y agoGood to know, and knowing this, it underlines how much sense Linus' decision makes
- Groxx 4y agoYeah, the non-malicious failure mode is extremely reasonable, and overall I think it's a good choice... minus not building in support for changing the algorithm from the beginning. Checksum algorithms somewhat regularly need changing. This was completely foreseeable. The malicious failure modes... I don't know. No doubt something is possible, particularly when you account for common surrounding-system usage patterns.