[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140921210416.27127.qmail@ns.horizon.com>
Date: 21 Sep 2014 17:04:16 -0400
From: linux@...izon.com
To: linux@...izon.com, tytso@....edu
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] mke2fs -E hash_alg=siphash: any interest?
> I'm certainly not against adding a new hash function. The reality is
> that it would be quite a while before we could turn it on by default,
> because of the backwards compatibility concerns.
Well, yes, obviously! My itch is just that I want to use it myself;
I prefer it for security and cleanliness reasons. The benchmarks are
mostly to prove that it isn't slower.
> The question I would ask is whether we can show an anctual performance
> improvement with the hash being used in situ.
I quite agree, but I'll have to have a working patch before such
a test can be made.
One things I'm coming across immediately that I have to ask for
design guidance on is the hash algorithm number assignment:
- Should I leave room for more hashes with a signed/unsigned distinction,
or should I assume that's a historical kludge that won't be perpetuated?
SipHash is defined on a byte string, so there isn't really a signed
version.
- Should I use a new EXT2_HASH_SIPHASH_62 = 6, or should I
renumber the (internal-only) EXT2_HASH_*_UNSIGNED values and use
EXT2_HASH_SIPHASH_4_2 = 4?
None of this is truly final, but it would make my life easier if I
didn't have to change it on my test filesystems too often.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists