On Sun, Jun 03, 2018 at 05:03:44PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > If you don't think a potential 2x -- 10x performance hit isn't a > blocking factor --- sure, go ahead and try implementing it. And good > luck to you. And this is not a guarantee that it won't get rejected. > I certainly don't have the power to make that guarantee.
I do not want or expect a guarantee, or even a probability, of course. Just trying to avoid "STRONG REJECT. We could have said you before you even started implementing. Why didn't you discuss this beforehand?" One would simply change something like author A U Thor <aut...@example.com> 1465982009 +0000 into something like author 21bbba8e9ce9734022d2c23df247a2704c0320ad7d43c02e8bdecdfae27e23b4 A U Thor <aut...@example.com> author-hash 469bb107e38f8e59dddb3bbd6f8646e052bf73d48427865563c7358a64467f2c authordate c444f739ca317e09dbd3dae1207065585ae2c2e18cd0fc434b5bde08df1e0569 1465982009 +0000 authordate-hash 199875e5aedb6cb164a2b40c16209dc5bb37f34c059a56c6d96766440fb0fe68 and then compute the commit id without the "author" and the "authordate" lines. The *-hash values were obtained as follows: echo -n '21bbba8e9ce9734022d2c23df247a2704c0320ad7d43c02e8bdecdfae27e23b4 A U Thor <aut...@example.com>' | sha3sum -a 256 echo -n 'c444f739ca317e09dbd3dae1207065585ae2c2e18cd0fc434b5bde08df1e0569 1465982009 +0000' | sha3sum -a 256 The hex values here are simply the $huge_random_numbers Verifying the commit ID by itself wouldn't be any less efficient than before. Admitteldly, it wouldn't verify the author and authordate integrity anymore without additional work. That would be some overhead, sure, and could be done on demand, and would mostly affect clones. I don't think it would be that much of a problem. It can be parallelized easily. The hashes for each field are independent of each other. They can all be verified in parallel in different threads running on different cores. On djb's typical 2015 skylake machine the supercop benchmark tells us that sha3-256 (~=keccakc512) has a speed of about 20 cycles/byte for blocks of 64 bytes of data, see https://bench.cr.yp.to/results-sha3.html#amd64-skylake Let's say we have 128 bytes of data on average for the author field, so conservatively speaking it takes about 3000 cycles (> 128*20) to hash and compare the hash. At 3000 MHz, we can thus do roughly about 1000 verifications per second per core. Let's assume we have 10 anonymizable fields of this kind per commit. Then the overhead would be one second per 100 x ncores commits. How many commits are we talking about in a huge repository? And how long does a clone of such a huge repository take at the moment? Do you have any numbers? > If you don't have time to implement, why do you think it's fair to > inflict on everyone else the request for time to do a design review > for something for which the need hasn't even been established? I do not request from anyone to even reply to my messages. I just see a lot of time being wasted by discussing things about my proposal that are technically irrelevant. If that time were put into reviewing the design, it would be spent better. Please don't devalue a proposal. It is not true that the only value is in actual code and proposals are "bullshit". I was not the first to raise the issue, as I clearly showed in my initial email. The demand is in fact high; very high. At present, that demand is satisfied by lawyers. Who are writing snake oil disclaimers and such for enormous sums of money. In a lot of companies. To "solve" a technical issue by pseudo-legal means by finding excuses for why the "right to be forgotten" doesn't have to be implemented in specific cases such as git. What if all that lawyer money were put into actually solving the technical issues as technical issues? Engineers are apparently bad at marketing, the lawyers seem more successful in that respect. Best wishes Peter -- Peter Backes, r...@helen.plasma.xg8.de
