2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
Git hash function transition
|
|
|
|
============================
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Objective
|
|
|
|
---------
|
|
|
|
Migrate Git from SHA-1 to a stronger hash function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background
|
|
|
|
----------
|
|
|
|
At its core, the Git version control system is a content addressable
|
|
|
|
filesystem. It uses the SHA-1 hash function to name content. For
|
|
|
|
example, files, directories, and revisions are referred to by hash
|
|
|
|
values unlike in other traditional version control systems where files
|
|
|
|
or versions are referred to via sequential numbers. The use of a hash
|
|
|
|
function to address its content delivers a few advantages:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Integrity checking is easy. Bit flips, for example, are easily
|
|
|
|
detected, as the hash of corrupted content does not match its name.
|
|
|
|
* Lookup of objects is fast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using a cryptographically secure hash function brings additional
|
|
|
|
advantages:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Object names can be signed and third parties can trust the hash to
|
|
|
|
address the signed object and all objects it references.
|
|
|
|
* Communication using Git protocol and out of band communication
|
|
|
|
methods have a short reliable string that can be used to reliably
|
|
|
|
address stored content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Over time some flaws in SHA-1 have been discovered by security
|
2018-03-26 20:27:08 +02:00
|
|
|
researchers. On 23 February 2017 the SHAttered attack
|
|
|
|
(https://shattered.io) demonstrated a practical SHA-1 hash collision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Git v2.13.0 and later subsequently moved to a hardened SHA-1
|
|
|
|
implementation by default, which isn't vulnerable to the SHAttered
|
|
|
|
attack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus Git has in effect already migrated to a new hash that isn't SHA-1
|
|
|
|
and doesn't share its vulnerabilities, its new hash function just
|
|
|
|
happens to produce exactly the same output for all known inputs,
|
|
|
|
except two PDFs published by the SHAttered researchers, and the new
|
|
|
|
implementation (written by those researchers) claims to detect future
|
|
|
|
cryptanalytic collision attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regardless, it's considered prudent to move past any variant of SHA-1
|
|
|
|
to a new hash. There's no guarantee that future attacks on SHA-1 won't
|
|
|
|
be published in the future, and those attacks may not have viable
|
|
|
|
mitigations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If SHA-1 and its variants were to be truly broken, Git's hash function
|
|
|
|
could not be considered cryptographically secure any more. This would
|
|
|
|
impact the communication of hash values because we could not trust
|
|
|
|
that a given hash value represented the known good version of content
|
|
|
|
that the speaker intended.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SHA-1 still possesses the other properties such as fast object lookup
|
|
|
|
and safe error checking, but other hash functions are equally suitable
|
|
|
|
that are believed to be cryptographically secure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goals
|
|
|
|
-----
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
1. The transition to SHA-256 can be done one local repository at a time.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
a. Requiring no action by any other party.
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
b. A SHA-256 repository can communicate with SHA-1 Git servers
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
(push/fetch).
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
c. Users can use SHA-1 and SHA-256 identifiers for objects
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
interchangeably (see "Object names on the command line", below).
|
|
|
|
d. New signed objects make use of a stronger hash function than
|
|
|
|
SHA-1 for their security guarantees.
|
|
|
|
2. Allow a complete transition away from SHA-1.
|
|
|
|
a. Local metadata for SHA-1 compatibility can be removed from a
|
|
|
|
repository if compatibility with SHA-1 is no longer needed.
|
|
|
|
3. Maintainability throughout the process.
|
|
|
|
a. The object format is kept simple and consistent.
|
|
|
|
b. Creation of a generalized repository conversion tool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Goals
|
|
|
|
---------
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
1. Add SHA-256 support to Git protocol. This is valuable and the
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
logical next step but it is out of scope for this initial design.
|
|
|
|
2. Transparently improving the security of existing SHA-1 signed
|
|
|
|
objects.
|
|
|
|
3. Intermixing objects using multiple hash functions in a single
|
|
|
|
repository.
|
|
|
|
4. Taking the opportunity to fix other bugs in Git's formats and
|
|
|
|
protocols.
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
5. Shallow clones and fetches into a SHA-256 repository. (This will
|
|
|
|
change when we add SHA-256 support to Git protocol.)
|
|
|
|
6. Skip fetching some submodules of a project into a SHA-256
|
|
|
|
repository. (This also depends on SHA-256 support in Git
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
protocol.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overview
|
|
|
|
--------
|
|
|
|
We introduce a new repository format extension. Repositories with this
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
extension enabled use SHA-256 instead of SHA-1 to name their objects.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
This affects both object names and object content --- both the names
|
|
|
|
of objects and all references to other objects within an object are
|
|
|
|
switched to the new hash function.
|
|
|
|
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
SHA-256 repositories cannot be read by older versions of Git.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
Alongside the packfile, a SHA-256 repository stores a bidirectional
|
|
|
|
mapping between SHA-256 and SHA-1 object names. The mapping is generated
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
locally and can be verified using "git fsck". Object lookups use this
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
mapping to allow naming objects using either their SHA-1 and SHA-256 names
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
interchangeably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"git cat-file" and "git hash-object" gain options to display an object
|
|
|
|
in its sha1 form and write an object given its sha1 form. This
|
|
|
|
requires all objects referenced by that object to be present in the
|
|
|
|
object database so that they can be named using the appropriate name
|
|
|
|
(using the bidirectional hash mapping).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fetches from a SHA-1 based server convert the fetched objects into
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
SHA-256 form and record the mapping in the bidirectional mapping table
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
(see below for details). Pushes to a SHA-1 based server convert the
|
|
|
|
objects being pushed into sha1 form so the server does not have to be
|
|
|
|
aware of the hash function the client is using.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Detailed Design
|
|
|
|
---------------
|
|
|
|
Repository format extension
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
A SHA-256 repository uses repository format version `1` (see
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
Documentation/technical/repository-version.txt) with extensions
|
|
|
|
`objectFormat` and `compatObjectFormat`:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[core]
|
|
|
|
repositoryFormatVersion = 1
|
|
|
|
[extensions]
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
objectFormat = sha256
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
compatObjectFormat = sha1
|
|
|
|
|
2018-03-26 20:27:07 +02:00
|
|
|
The combination of setting `core.repositoryFormatVersion=1` and
|
|
|
|
populating `extensions.*` ensures that all versions of Git later than
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
`v0.99.9l` will die instead of trying to operate on the SHA-256
|
2018-03-26 20:27:07 +02:00
|
|
|
repository, instead producing an error message.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2018-03-26 20:27:07 +02:00
|
|
|
# Between v0.99.9l and v2.7.0
|
|
|
|
$ git status
|
|
|
|
fatal: Expected git repo version <= 0, found 1
|
|
|
|
# After v2.7.0
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
$ git status
|
|
|
|
fatal: unknown repository extensions found:
|
|
|
|
objectformat
|
|
|
|
compatobjectformat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See the "Transition plan" section below for more details on these
|
|
|
|
repository extensions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Object names
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Objects can be named by their 40 hexadecimal digit sha1-name or 64
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
hexadecimal digit sha256-name, plus names derived from those (see
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
gitrevisions(7)).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The sha1-name of an object is the SHA-1 of the concatenation of its
|
|
|
|
type, length, a nul byte, and the object's sha1-content. This is the
|
|
|
|
traditional <sha1> used in Git to name objects.
|
|
|
|
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
The sha256-name of an object is the SHA-256 of the concatenation of its
|
|
|
|
type, length, a nul byte, and the object's sha256-content.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Object format
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
The content as a byte sequence of a tag, commit, or tree object named
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
by sha1 and sha256 differ because an object named by sha256-name refers to
|
|
|
|
other objects by their sha256-names and an object named by sha1-name
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
refers to other objects by their sha1-names.
|
|
|
|
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
The sha256-content of an object is the same as its sha1-content, except
|
|
|
|
that objects referenced by the object are named using their sha256-names
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
instead of sha1-names. Because a blob object does not refer to any
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
other object, its sha1-content and sha256-content are the same.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
The format allows round-trip conversion between sha256-content and
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
sha1-content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Object storage
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Loose objects use zlib compression and packed objects use the packed
|
|
|
|
format described in Documentation/technical/pack-format.txt, just like
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
today. The content that is compressed and stored uses sha256-content
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
instead of sha1-content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pack index
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Pack index (.idx) files use a new v3 format that supports multiple
|
|
|
|
hash functions. They have the following format (all integers are in
|
|
|
|
network byte order):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- A header appears at the beginning and consists of the following:
|
|
|
|
- The 4-byte pack index signature: '\377t0c'
|
|
|
|
- 4-byte version number: 3
|
|
|
|
- 4-byte length of the header section, including the signature and
|
|
|
|
version number
|
|
|
|
- 4-byte number of objects contained in the pack
|
|
|
|
- 4-byte number of object formats in this pack index: 2
|
|
|
|
- For each object format:
|
|
|
|
- 4-byte format identifier (e.g., 'sha1' for SHA-1)
|
|
|
|
- 4-byte length in bytes of shortened object names. This is the
|
|
|
|
shortest possible length needed to make names in the shortened
|
|
|
|
object name table unambiguous.
|
|
|
|
- 4-byte integer, recording where tables relating to this format
|
|
|
|
are stored in this index file, as an offset from the beginning.
|
|
|
|
- 4-byte offset to the trailer from the beginning of this file.
|
|
|
|
- Zero or more additional key/value pairs (4-byte key, 4-byte
|
|
|
|
value). Only one key is supported: 'PSRC'. See the "Loose objects
|
|
|
|
and unreachable objects" section for supported values and how this
|
|
|
|
is used. All other keys are reserved. Readers must ignore
|
|
|
|
unrecognized keys.
|
|
|
|
- Zero or more NUL bytes. This can optionally be used to improve the
|
|
|
|
alignment of the full object name table below.
|
|
|
|
- Tables for the first object format:
|
|
|
|
- A sorted table of shortened object names. These are prefixes of
|
|
|
|
the names of all objects in this pack file, packed together
|
|
|
|
without offset values to reduce the cache footprint of the binary
|
|
|
|
search for a specific object name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- A table of full object names in pack order. This allows resolving
|
|
|
|
a reference to "the nth object in the pack file" (from a
|
|
|
|
reachability bitmap or from the next table of another object
|
|
|
|
format) to its object name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- A table of 4-byte values mapping object name order to pack order.
|
|
|
|
For an object in the table of sorted shortened object names, the
|
|
|
|
value at the corresponding index in this table is the index in the
|
|
|
|
previous table for that same object.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This can be used to look up the object in reachability bitmaps or
|
|
|
|
to look up its name in another object format.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- A table of 4-byte CRC32 values of the packed object data, in the
|
|
|
|
order that the objects appear in the pack file. This is to allow
|
|
|
|
compressed data to be copied directly from pack to pack during
|
|
|
|
repacking without undetected data corruption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- A table of 4-byte offset values. For an object in the table of
|
|
|
|
sorted shortened object names, the value at the corresponding
|
|
|
|
index in this table indicates where that object can be found in
|
|
|
|
the pack file. These are usually 31-bit pack file offsets, but
|
|
|
|
large offsets are encoded as an index into the next table with the
|
|
|
|
most significant bit set.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- A table of 8-byte offset entries (empty for pack files less than
|
|
|
|
2 GiB). Pack files are organized with heavily used objects toward
|
|
|
|
the front, so most object references should not need to refer to
|
|
|
|
this table.
|
|
|
|
- Zero or more NUL bytes.
|
|
|
|
- Tables for the second object format, with the same layout as above,
|
|
|
|
up to and not including the table of CRC32 values.
|
|
|
|
- Zero or more NUL bytes.
|
|
|
|
- The trailer consists of the following:
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
- A copy of the 20-byte SHA-256 checksum at the end of the
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
corresponding packfile.
|
|
|
|
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
- 20-byte SHA-256 checksum of all of the above.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loose object index
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
A new file $GIT_OBJECT_DIR/loose-object-idx contains information about
|
|
|
|
all loose objects. Its format is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# loose-object-idx
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
(sha256-name SP sha1-name LF)*
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where the object names are in hexadecimal format. The file is not
|
|
|
|
sorted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The loose object index is protected against concurrent writes by a
|
|
|
|
lock file $GIT_OBJECT_DIR/loose-object-idx.lock. To add a new loose
|
|
|
|
object:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Write the loose object to a temporary file, like today.
|
|
|
|
2. Open loose-object-idx.lock with O_CREAT | O_EXCL to acquire the lock.
|
|
|
|
3. Rename the loose object into place.
|
|
|
|
4. Open loose-object-idx with O_APPEND and write the new object
|
|
|
|
5. Unlink loose-object-idx.lock to release the lock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To remove entries (e.g. in "git pack-refs" or "git-prune"):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Open loose-object-idx.lock with O_CREAT | O_EXCL to acquire the
|
|
|
|
lock.
|
|
|
|
2. Write the new content to loose-object-idx.lock.
|
|
|
|
3. Unlink any loose objects being removed.
|
|
|
|
4. Rename to replace loose-object-idx, releasing the lock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translation table
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
The index files support a bidirectional mapping between sha1-names
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
and sha256-names. The lookup proceeds similarly to ordinary object
|
|
|
|
lookups. For example, to convert a sha1-name to a sha256-name:
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Look for the object in idx files. If a match is present in the
|
|
|
|
idx's sorted list of truncated sha1-names, then:
|
|
|
|
a. Read the corresponding entry in the sha1-name order to pack
|
|
|
|
name order mapping.
|
|
|
|
b. Read the corresponding entry in the full sha1-name table to
|
|
|
|
verify we found the right object. If it is, then
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
c. Read the corresponding entry in the full sha256-name table.
|
|
|
|
That is the object's sha256-name.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
2. Check for a loose object. Read lines from loose-object-idx until
|
|
|
|
we find a match.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Step (1) takes the same amount of time as an ordinary object lookup:
|
|
|
|
O(number of packs * log(objects per pack)). Step (2) takes O(number of
|
|
|
|
loose objects) time. To maintain good performance it will be necessary
|
|
|
|
to keep the number of loose objects low. See the "Loose objects and
|
|
|
|
unreachable objects" section below for more details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since all operations that make new objects (e.g., "git commit") add
|
|
|
|
the new objects to the corresponding index, this mapping is possible
|
|
|
|
for all objects in the object store.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reading an object's sha1-content
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
The sha1-content of an object can be read by converting all sha256-names
|
|
|
|
its sha256-content references to sha1-names using the translation table.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fetch
|
|
|
|
~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Fetching from a SHA-1 based server requires translating between SHA-1
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
and SHA-256 based representations on the fly.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SHA-1s named in the ref advertisement that are present on the client
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
can be translated to SHA-256 and looked up as local objects using the
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
translation table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Negotiation proceeds as today. Any "have"s generated locally are
|
|
|
|
converted to SHA-1 before being sent to the server, and SHA-1s
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
mentioned by the server are converted to SHA-256 when looking them up
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
locally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After negotiation, the server sends a packfile containing the
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
requested objects. We convert the packfile to SHA-256 format using
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
the following steps:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. index-pack: inflate each object in the packfile and compute its
|
|
|
|
SHA-1. Objects can contain deltas in OBJ_REF_DELTA format against
|
|
|
|
objects the client has locally. These objects can be looked up
|
|
|
|
using the translation table and their sha1-content read as
|
|
|
|
described above to resolve the deltas.
|
|
|
|
2. topological sort: starting at the "want"s from the negotiation
|
|
|
|
phase, walk through objects in the pack and emit a list of them,
|
|
|
|
excluding blobs, in reverse topologically sorted order, with each
|
|
|
|
object coming later in the list than all objects it references.
|
|
|
|
(This list only contains objects reachable from the "wants". If the
|
|
|
|
pack from the server contained additional extraneous objects, then
|
|
|
|
they will be discarded.)
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
3. convert to sha256: open a new (sha256) packfile. Read the topologically
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
sorted list just generated. For each object, inflate its
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
sha1-content, convert to sha256-content, and write it to the sha256
|
|
|
|
pack. Record the new sha1<->sha256 mapping entry for use in the idx.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
4. sort: reorder entries in the new pack to match the order of objects
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
in the pack the server generated and include blobs. Write a sha256 idx
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
file
|
|
|
|
5. clean up: remove the SHA-1 based pack file, index, and
|
|
|
|
topologically sorted list obtained from the server in steps 1
|
|
|
|
and 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Step 3 requires every object referenced by the new object to be in the
|
|
|
|
translation table. This is why the topological sort step is necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As an optimization, step 1 could write a file describing what non-blob
|
|
|
|
objects each object it has inflated from the packfile references. This
|
|
|
|
makes the topological sort in step 2 possible without inflating the
|
|
|
|
objects in the packfile for a second time. The objects need to be
|
|
|
|
inflated again in step 3, for a total of two inflations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Step 4 is probably necessary for good read-time performance. "git
|
|
|
|
pack-objects" on the server optimizes the pack file for good data
|
|
|
|
locality (see Documentation/technical/pack-heuristics.txt).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Details of this process are likely to change. It will take some
|
|
|
|
experimenting to get this to perform well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Push
|
|
|
|
~~~~
|
|
|
|
Push is simpler than fetch because the objects referenced by the
|
|
|
|
pushed objects are already in the translation table. The sha1-content
|
|
|
|
of each object being pushed can be read as described in the "Reading
|
|
|
|
an object's sha1-content" section to generate the pack written by git
|
|
|
|
send-pack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed Commits
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
We add a new field "gpgsig-sha256" to the commit object format to allow
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
signing commits without relying on SHA-1. It is similar to the
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
existing "gpgsig" field. Its signed payload is the sha256-content of the
|
|
|
|
commit object with any "gpgsig" and "gpgsig-sha256" fields removed.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This means commits can be signed
|
|
|
|
1. using SHA-1 only, as in existing signed commit objects
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
2. using both SHA-1 and SHA-256, by using both gpgsig-sha256 and gpgsig
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
fields.
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
3. using only SHA-256, by only using the gpgsig-sha256 field.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Old versions of "git verify-commit" can verify the gpgsig signature in
|
|
|
|
cases (1) and (2) without modifications and view case (3) as an
|
|
|
|
ordinary unsigned commit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed Tags
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
We add a new field "gpgsig-sha256" to the tag object format to allow
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
signing tags without relying on SHA-1. Its signed payload is the
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
sha256-content of the tag with its gpgsig-sha256 field and "-----BEGIN PGP
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
SIGNATURE-----" delimited in-body signature removed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This means tags can be signed
|
|
|
|
1. using SHA-1 only, as in existing signed tag objects
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
2. using both SHA-1 and SHA-256, by using gpgsig-sha256 and an in-body
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
signature.
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
3. using only SHA-256, by only using the gpgsig-sha256 field.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mergetag embedding
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
The mergetag field in the sha1-content of a commit contains the
|
|
|
|
sha1-content of a tag that was merged by that commit.
|
|
|
|
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
The mergetag field in the sha256-content of the same commit contains the
|
|
|
|
sha256-content of the same tag.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Submodules
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
To convert recorded submodule pointers, you need to have the converted
|
|
|
|
submodule repository in place. The translation table of the submodule
|
|
|
|
can be used to look up the new hash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loose objects and unreachable objects
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Fast lookups in the loose-object-idx require that the number of loose
|
|
|
|
objects not grow too high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"git gc --auto" currently waits for there to be 6700 loose objects
|
|
|
|
present before consolidating them into a packfile. We will need to
|
|
|
|
measure to find a more appropriate threshold for it to use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"git gc --auto" currently waits for there to be 50 packs present
|
|
|
|
before combining packfiles. Packing loose objects more aggressively
|
|
|
|
may cause the number of pack files to grow too quickly. This can be
|
|
|
|
mitigated by using a strategy similar to Martin Fick's exponential
|
|
|
|
rolling garbage collection script:
|
|
|
|
https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/c/gerrit/+/35215
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"git gc" currently expels any unreachable objects it encounters in
|
|
|
|
pack files to loose objects in an attempt to prevent a race when
|
|
|
|
pruning them (in case another process is simultaneously writing a new
|
|
|
|
object that refers to the about-to-be-deleted object). This leads to
|
|
|
|
an explosion in the number of loose objects present and disk space
|
|
|
|
usage due to the objects in delta form being replaced with independent
|
|
|
|
loose objects. Worse, the race is still present for loose objects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instead, "git gc" will need to move unreachable objects to a new
|
|
|
|
packfile marked as UNREACHABLE_GARBAGE (using the PSRC field; see
|
|
|
|
below). To avoid the race when writing new objects referring to an
|
|
|
|
about-to-be-deleted object, code paths that write new objects will
|
|
|
|
need to copy any objects from UNREACHABLE_GARBAGE packs that they
|
|
|
|
refer to to new, non-UNREACHABLE_GARBAGE packs (or loose objects).
|
|
|
|
UNREACHABLE_GARBAGE are then safe to delete if their creation time (as
|
|
|
|
indicated by the file's mtime) is long enough ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To avoid a proliferation of UNREACHABLE_GARBAGE packs, they can be
|
|
|
|
combined under certain circumstances. If "gc.garbageTtl" is set to
|
|
|
|
greater than one day, then packs created within a single calendar day,
|
|
|
|
UTC, can be coalesced together. The resulting packfile would have an
|
|
|
|
mtime before midnight on that day, so this makes the effective maximum
|
|
|
|
ttl the garbageTtl + 1 day. If "gc.garbageTtl" is less than one day,
|
|
|
|
then we divide the calendar day into intervals one-third of that ttl
|
|
|
|
in duration. Packs created within the same interval can be coalesced
|
|
|
|
together. The resulting packfile would have an mtime before the end of
|
|
|
|
the interval, so this makes the effective maximum ttl equal to the
|
|
|
|
garbageTtl * 4/3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This rule comes from Thirumala Reddy Mutchukota's JGit change
|
|
|
|
https://git.eclipse.org/r/90465.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The UNREACHABLE_GARBAGE setting goes in the PSRC field of the pack
|
|
|
|
index. More generally, that field indicates where a pack came from:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- 1 (PACK_SOURCE_RECEIVE) for a pack received over the network
|
|
|
|
- 2 (PACK_SOURCE_AUTO) for a pack created by a lightweight
|
|
|
|
"gc --auto" operation
|
|
|
|
- 3 (PACK_SOURCE_GC) for a pack created by a full gc
|
|
|
|
- 4 (PACK_SOURCE_UNREACHABLE_GARBAGE) for potential garbage
|
|
|
|
discovered by gc
|
|
|
|
- 5 (PACK_SOURCE_INSERT) for locally created objects that were
|
|
|
|
written directly to a pack file, e.g. from "git add ."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This information can be useful for debugging and for "gc --auto" to
|
|
|
|
make appropriate choices about which packs to coalesce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caveats
|
|
|
|
-------
|
|
|
|
Invalid objects
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
The conversion from sha1-content to sha256-content retains any
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
brokenness in the original object (e.g., tree entry modes encoded with
|
|
|
|
leading 0, tree objects whose paths are not sorted correctly, and
|
|
|
|
commit objects without an author or committer). This is a deliberate
|
|
|
|
feature of the design to allow the conversion to round-trip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More profoundly broken objects (e.g., a commit with a truncated "tree"
|
|
|
|
header line) cannot be converted but were not usable by current Git
|
|
|
|
anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shallow clone and submodules
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Because it requires all referenced objects to be available in the
|
|
|
|
locally generated translation table, this design does not support
|
|
|
|
shallow clone or unfetched submodules. Protocol improvements might
|
|
|
|
allow lifting this restriction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alternates
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
For the same reason, a sha256 repository cannot borrow objects from a
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
sha1 repository using objects/info/alternates or
|
|
|
|
$GIT_ALTERNATE_OBJECT_REPOSITORIES.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
git notes
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
The "git notes" tool annotates objects using their sha1-name as key.
|
|
|
|
This design does not describe a way to migrate notes trees to use
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
sha256-names. That migration is expected to happen separately (for
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
example using a file at the root of the notes tree to describe which
|
|
|
|
hash it uses).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Server-side cost
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
Until Git protocol gains SHA-256 support, using SHA-256 based storage
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
on public-facing Git servers is strongly discouraged. Once Git
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
protocol gains SHA-256 support, SHA-256 based servers are likely not
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
to support SHA-1 compatibility, to avoid what may be a very expensive
|
|
|
|
hash reencode during clone and to encourage peers to modernize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The design described here allows fetches by SHA-1 clients of a
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
personal SHA-256 repository because it's not much more difficult than
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
allowing pushes from that repository. This support needs to be guarded
|
|
|
|
by a configuration option --- servers like git.kernel.org that serve a
|
|
|
|
large number of clients would not be expected to bear that cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meaning of signatures
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
The signed payload for signed commits and tags does not explicitly
|
|
|
|
name the hash used to identify objects. If some day Git adopts a new
|
|
|
|
hash function with the same length as the current SHA-1 (40
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
hexadecimal digit) or SHA-256 (64 hexadecimal digit) objects then the
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
intent behind the PGP signed payload in an object signature is
|
|
|
|
unclear:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
object e7e07d5a4fcc2a203d9873968ad3e6bd4d7419d7
|
|
|
|
type commit
|
|
|
|
tag v2.12.0
|
|
|
|
tagger Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 1487962205 -0800
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Git 2.12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does this mean Git v2.12.0 is the commit with sha1-name
|
|
|
|
e7e07d5a4fcc2a203d9873968ad3e6bd4d7419d7 or the commit with
|
|
|
|
new-40-digit-hash-name e7e07d5a4fcc2a203d9873968ad3e6bd4d7419d7?
|
|
|
|
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
Fortunately SHA-256 and SHA-1 have different lengths. If Git starts
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
using another hash with the same length to name objects, then it will
|
|
|
|
need to change the format of signed payloads using that hash to
|
|
|
|
address this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Object names on the command line
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
To support the transition (see Transition plan below), this design
|
|
|
|
supports four different modes of operation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. ("dark launch") Treat object names input by the user as SHA-1 and
|
|
|
|
convert any object names written to output to SHA-1, but store
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
objects using SHA-256. This allows users to test the code with no
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
visible behavior change except for performance. This allows
|
|
|
|
allows running even tests that assume the SHA-1 hash function, to
|
|
|
|
sanity-check the behavior of the new mode.
|
|
|
|
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
2. ("early transition") Allow both SHA-1 and SHA-256 object names in
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
input. Any object names written to output use SHA-1. This allows
|
|
|
|
users to continue to make use of SHA-1 to communicate with peers
|
|
|
|
(e.g. by email) that have not migrated yet and prepares for mode 3.
|
|
|
|
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
3. ("late transition") Allow both SHA-1 and SHA-256 object names in
|
|
|
|
input. Any object names written to output use SHA-256. In this
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
mode, users are using a more secure object naming method by
|
|
|
|
default. The disruption is minimal as long as most of their peers
|
|
|
|
are in mode 2 or mode 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. ("post-transition") Treat object names input by the user as
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
SHA-256 and write output using SHA-256. This is safer than mode 3
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
because there is less risk that input is incorrectly interpreted
|
|
|
|
using the wrong hash function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The mode is specified in configuration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The user can also explicitly specify which format to use for a
|
|
|
|
particular revision specifier and for output, overriding the mode. For
|
|
|
|
example:
|
|
|
|
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
git --output-format=sha1 log abac87a^{sha1}..f787cac^{sha256}
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
Choice of Hash
|
|
|
|
--------------
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
In early 2005, around the time that Git was written, Xiaoyun Wang,
|
|
|
|
Yiqun Lisa Yin, and Hongbo Yu announced an attack finding SHA-1
|
|
|
|
collisions in 2^69 operations. In August they published details.
|
|
|
|
Luckily, no practical demonstrations of a collision in full SHA-1 were
|
|
|
|
published until 10 years later, in 2017.
|
|
|
|
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
Git v2.13.0 and later subsequently moved to a hardened SHA-1
|
|
|
|
implementation by default that mitigates the SHAttered attack, but
|
|
|
|
SHA-1 is still believed to be weak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The hash to replace this hardened SHA-1 should be stronger than SHA-1
|
|
|
|
was: we would like it to be trustworthy and useful in practice for at
|
|
|
|
least 10 years.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some other relevant properties:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. A 256-bit hash (long enough to match common security practice; not
|
|
|
|
excessively long to hurt performance and disk usage).
|
|
|
|
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
2. High quality implementations should be widely available (e.g., in
|
|
|
|
OpenSSL and Apple CommonCrypto).
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. The hash function's properties should match Git's needs (e.g. Git
|
|
|
|
requires collision and 2nd preimage resistance and does not require
|
|
|
|
length extension resistance).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. As a tiebreaker, the hash should be fast to compute (fortunately
|
|
|
|
many contenders are faster than SHA-1).
|
|
|
|
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
We choose SHA-256.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transition plan
|
|
|
|
---------------
|
|
|
|
Some initial steps can be implemented independently of one another:
|
|
|
|
- adding a hash function API (vtable)
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
- teaching fsck to tolerate the gpgsig-sha256 field
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
- excluding gpgsig-* from the fields copied by "git commit --amend"
|
|
|
|
- annotating tests that depend on SHA-1 values with a SHA1 test
|
|
|
|
prerequisite
|
|
|
|
- using "struct object_id", GIT_MAX_RAWSZ, and GIT_MAX_HEXSZ
|
|
|
|
consistently instead of "unsigned char *" and the hardcoded
|
|
|
|
constants 20 and 40.
|
|
|
|
- introducing index v3
|
|
|
|
- adding support for the PSRC field and safer object pruning
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The first user-visible change is the introduction of the objectFormat
|
|
|
|
extension (without compatObjectFormat). This requires:
|
|
|
|
- implementing the loose-object-idx
|
|
|
|
- teaching fsck about this mode of operation
|
|
|
|
- using the hash function API (vtable) when computing object names
|
|
|
|
- signing objects and verifying signatures
|
|
|
|
- rejecting attempts to fetch from or push to an incompatible
|
|
|
|
repository
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Next comes introduction of compatObjectFormat:
|
|
|
|
- translating object names between object formats
|
|
|
|
- translating object content between object formats
|
|
|
|
- generating and verifying signatures in the compat format
|
|
|
|
- adding appropriate index entries when adding a new object to the
|
|
|
|
object store
|
|
|
|
- --output-format option
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
- ^{sha1} and ^{sha256} revision notation
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
- configuration to specify default input and output format (see
|
|
|
|
"Object names on the command line" above)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The next step is supporting fetches and pushes to SHA-1 repositories:
|
|
|
|
- allow pushes to a repository using the compat format
|
|
|
|
- generate a topologically sorted list of the SHA-1 names of fetched
|
|
|
|
objects
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
- convert the fetched packfile to sha256 format and generate an idx
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
file
|
|
|
|
- re-sort to match the order of objects in the fetched packfile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The infrastructure supporting fetch also allows converting an existing
|
|
|
|
repository. In converted repositories and new clones, end users can
|
|
|
|
gain support for the new hash function without any visible change in
|
|
|
|
behavior (see "dark launch" in the "Object names on the command line"
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
section). In particular this allows users to verify SHA-256 signatures
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
on objects in the repository, and it should ensure the transition code
|
|
|
|
is stable in production in preparation for using it more widely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Over time projects would encourage their users to adopt the "early
|
|
|
|
transition" and then "late transition" modes to take advantage of the
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
new, more futureproof SHA-256 object names.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When objectFormat and compatObjectFormat are both set, commands
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
generating signatures would generate both SHA-1 and SHA-256 signatures
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
by default to support both new and old users.
|
|
|
|
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
In projects using SHA-256 heavily, users could be encouraged to adopt
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
the "post-transition" mode to avoid accidentally making implicit use
|
|
|
|
of SHA-1 object names.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once a critical mass of users have upgraded to a version of Git that
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
can verify SHA-256 signatures and have converted their existing
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
repositories to support verifying them, we can add support for a
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
setting to generate only SHA-256 signatures. This is expected to be at
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
least a year later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is also a good moment to advertise the ability to convert
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
repositories to use SHA-256 only, stripping out all SHA-1 related
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
metadata. This improves performance by eliminating translation
|
|
|
|
overhead and security by avoiding the possibility of accidentally
|
|
|
|
relying on the safety of SHA-1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Updating Git's protocols to allow a server to specify which hash
|
|
|
|
functions it supports is also an important part of this transition. It
|
|
|
|
is not discussed in detail in this document but this transition plan
|
|
|
|
assumes it happens. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alternatives considered
|
|
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
|
|
Upgrading everyone working on a particular project on a flag day
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Projects like the Linux kernel are large and complex enough that
|
|
|
|
flipping the switch for all projects based on the repository at once
|
|
|
|
is infeasible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not only would all developers and server operators supporting
|
|
|
|
developers have to switch on the same flag day, but supporting tooling
|
|
|
|
(continuous integration, code review, bug trackers, etc) would have to
|
|
|
|
be adapted as well. This also makes it difficult to get early feedback
|
|
|
|
from some project participants testing before it is time for mass
|
|
|
|
adoption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using hash functions in parallel
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
(e.g. https://public-inbox.org/git/22708.8913.864049.452252@chiark.greenend.org.uk/ )
|
|
|
|
Objects newly created would be addressed by the new hash, but inside
|
|
|
|
such an object (e.g. commit) it is still possible to address objects
|
|
|
|
using the old hash function.
|
|
|
|
* You cannot trust its history (needed for bisectability) in the
|
|
|
|
future without further work
|
|
|
|
* Maintenance burden as the number of supported hash functions grows
|
|
|
|
(they will never go away, so they accumulate). In this proposal, by
|
|
|
|
comparison, converted objects lose all references to SHA-1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed objects with multiple hashes
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
Instead of introducing the gpgsig-sha256 field in commit and tag objects
|
|
|
|
for sha256-content based signatures, an earlier version of this design
|
|
|
|
added "hash sha256 <sha256-name>" fields to strengthen the existing
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
sha1-content based signatures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In other words, a single signature was used to attest to the object
|
|
|
|
content using both hash functions. This had some advantages:
|
|
|
|
* Using one signature instead of two speeds up the signing process.
|
|
|
|
* Having one signed payload with both hashes allows the signer to
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
attest to the sha1-name and sha256-name referring to the same object.
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
* All users consume the same signature. Broken signatures are likely
|
|
|
|
to be detected quickly using current versions of git.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, it also came with disadvantages:
|
|
|
|
* Verifying a signed object requires access to the sha1-names of all
|
|
|
|
objects it references, even after the transition is complete and
|
|
|
|
translation table is no longer needed for anything else. To support
|
|
|
|
this, the design added fields such as "hash sha1 tree <sha1-name>"
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
and "hash sha1 parent <sha1-name>" to the sha256-content of a signed
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
commit, complicating the conversion process.
|
|
|
|
* Allowing signed objects without a sha1 (for after the transition is
|
|
|
|
complete) complicated the design further, requiring a "nohash sha1"
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
field to suppress including "hash sha1" fields in the sha256-content
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
and signed payload.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lazily populated translation table
|
|
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Some of the work of building the translation table could be deferred to
|
|
|
|
push time, but that would significantly complicate and slow down pushes.
|
|
|
|
Calculating the sha1-name at object creation time at the same time it is
|
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256,
K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties.
All are good options from a security point of view.
SHA-256 has a number of advantages:
* It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by
just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG,
SecureTransport, etc).
* When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256
implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration.
* If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS),
we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our
security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them
alone could break the security when we could just depend on one.
So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to
say so.
After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string
"NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in
t/t9700/test.pl.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2018-08-04 10:52:47 +02:00
|
|
|
being streamed to disk and having its sha256-name calculated should be
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
an acceptable cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document History
|
|
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-03
|
|
|
|
bmwill@google.com, jonathantanmy@google.com, jrnieder@gmail.com,
|
|
|
|
sbeller@google.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Initial version sent to
|
|
|
|
http://public-inbox.org/git/20170304011251.GA26789@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-03 jrnieder@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
Incorporated suggestions from jonathantanmy and sbeller:
|
|
|
|
* describe purpose of signed objects with each hash type
|
|
|
|
* redefine signed object verification using object content under the
|
|
|
|
first hash function
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-06 jrnieder@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
* Use SHA3-256 instead of SHA2 (thanks, Linus and brian m. carlson).[1][2]
|
|
|
|
* Make sha3-based signatures a separate field, avoiding the need for
|
|
|
|
"hash" and "nohash" fields (thanks to peff[3]).
|
|
|
|
* Add a sorting phase to fetch (thanks to Junio for noticing the need
|
|
|
|
for this).
|
|
|
|
* Omit blobs from the topological sort during fetch (thanks to peff).
|
|
|
|
* Discuss alternates, git notes, and git servers in the caveats
|
|
|
|
section (thanks to Junio Hamano, brian m. carlson[4], and Shawn
|
|
|
|
Pearce).
|
|
|
|
* Clarify language throughout (thanks to various commenters,
|
|
|
|
especially Junio).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-27 jrnieder@gmail.com, sbeller@google.com
|
|
|
|
* use placeholder NewHash instead of SHA3-256
|
|
|
|
* describe criteria for picking a hash function.
|
|
|
|
* include a transition plan (thanks especially to Brandon Williams
|
|
|
|
for fleshing these ideas out)
|
|
|
|
* define the translation table (thanks, Shawn Pearce[5], Jonathan
|
|
|
|
Tan, and Masaya Suzuki)
|
|
|
|
* avoid loose object overhead by packing more aggressively in
|
|
|
|
"git gc --auto"
|
|
|
|
|
2018-07-25 10:30:23 +02:00
|
|
|
Later history:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See the history of this file in git.git for the history of subsequent
|
|
|
|
edits. This document history is no longer being maintained as it
|
|
|
|
would now be superfluous to the commit log
|
|
|
|
|
2017-09-28 06:43:21 +02:00
|
|
|
[1] http://public-inbox.org/git/CA+55aFzJtejiCjV0e43+9oR3QuJK2PiFiLQemytoLpyJWe6P9w@mail.gmail.com/
|
|
|
|
[2] http://public-inbox.org/git/CA+55aFz+gkAsDZ24zmePQuEs1XPS9BP_s8O7Q4wQ7LV7X5-oDA@mail.gmail.com/
|
|
|
|
[3] http://public-inbox.org/git/20170306084353.nrns455dvkdsfgo5@sigill.intra.peff.net/
|
|
|
|
[4] http://public-inbox.org/git/20170304224936.rqqtkdvfjgyezsht@genre.crustytoothpaste.net
|
|
|
|
[5] https://public-inbox.org/git/CAJo=hJtoX9=AyLHHpUJS7fueV9ciZ_MNpnEPHUz8Whui6g9F0A@mail.gmail.com/
|