Re: [PATCH] reject SHA1 collisions (was: Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?)

[Stefan Sperling]

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 06:48:03PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> If needed, admins
> can (re-)enable rep-sharing for an existing repository (as long as a
> collision hasn't been committed yet), right?

Sure. However, any content committed while rep-sharing was
disabled will not be considered during collision detection.

Re: [PATCH] reject SHA1 collisions (was: Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?)

[Stefan Sperling]

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 12:27:40PM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> From the best I can tell we have no plan on how or when we could support
> this in the working copy.  I have also seen a lot of people express
> interest in the hook scripts to block the sha1 collisions and not any real
> conversation about wanting to fully support storing collisions.  With that
> in mind, why not just simplify this and say we have no plans to provide
> support for supporting two files with the same sha1 and put the code in
> place in 1.9.x to block this from happening.  This removes the need for
> people to add hooks and it solves the problem.

Indeed. I have committed this change (with an updated test) in r1794611.

Re: [PATCH] reject SHA1 collisions (was: Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?)

[Johan Corveleyn]

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Mark Phippard  wrote:
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Stefan Sperling  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 03:44:22PM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> > Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, May 09, 2017 at 15:25:23 +0200:
>> > > This could be further extended by the config knob to give users a
>> > > choice.
>> > > I don't see a good way of adding such a knob in a patch release,
>> > > though.
>> >
>> > Just give the knob a name that indicates it's not forward compatible?
>> >
>> > For illustration, if the knob in 1.10 will be called "foo", then the
>> > knob in 1.9.6 could be named "SVN_NFC_foo", where the prefix stands for
>> > "svn not forward compatible".
>>
>> For a patch release I would generally prefer a simple solution that
>> does not add knobs. A fix that people can install and forget about
>> is going to be appreciated the most after all the hype and worrying
>> this problem has caused.
>>
>> And I wonder who would really want to tweak such a knob in the first
>> place.
>> People who really wish to store SHA1 collisions in their FSFS repository
>> could just disable rep-sharing, couldn't they?
>
>
>
> From the best I can tell we have no plan on how or when we could support
> this in the working copy.  I have also seen a lot of people express interest
> in the hook scripts to block the sha1 collisions and not any real
> conversation about wanting to fully support storing collisions.  With that
> in mind, why not just simplify this and say we have no plans to provide
> support for supporting two files with the same sha1 and put the code in
> place in 1.9.x to block this from happening.  This removes the need for
> people to add hooks and it solves the problem.
>
> If and when someone can state enough of a need for storing files with the
> same sha1 let them step forward with a proposal and code for how to do this.
> Until then it seems like just flat out blocking this from happening is
> better then a half hearted attempt to support it.
>
> This approach does not need any knobs or hooks.

Yeah, I was pushing on IRC for making it configurable (with some hope
that a future client release might support it, and then a 1.10
repository could be "opened up" if the svn admin wanted to allow
collisions). But I'm reconsidering. I guess you guys are right ...
nobody is really asking today for full support of sha1 collisions. So
better to keep it simple now, and flat out block them (and leave "full
sha1 collision support" for some distant future when someone really
wants / needs it.

And like Stefan said: one can always disable rep-sharing. Speaking of
which: we must make it really clear in docs that this collision
rejection will only work with if rep-sharing is on. If needed, admins
can (re-)enable rep-sharing for an existing repository (as long as a
collision hasn't been committed yet), right?

-- 
Johan

Re: [PATCH] reject SHA1 collisions (was: Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?)

[Mark Phippard]

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Stefan Sperling  wrote:

> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 03:44:22PM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, May 09, 2017 at 15:25:23 +0200:
> > > This could be further extended by the config knob to give users a
> choice.
> > > I don't see a good way of adding such a knob in a patch release,
> though.
> >
> > Just give the knob a name that indicates it's not forward compatible?
> >
> > For illustration, if the knob in 1.10 will be called "foo", then the
> > knob in 1.9.6 could be named "SVN_NFC_foo", where the prefix stands for
> > "svn not forward compatible".
>
> For a patch release I would generally prefer a simple solution that
> does not add knobs. A fix that people can install and forget about
> is going to be appreciated the most after all the hype and worrying
> this problem has caused.
>
> And I wonder who would really want to tweak such a knob in the first place.
> People who really wish to store SHA1 collisions in their FSFS repository
> could just disable rep-sharing, couldn't they?
>


>From the best I can tell we have no plan on how or when we could support
this in the working copy.  I have also seen a lot of people express
interest in the hook scripts to block the sha1 collisions and not any real
conversation about wanting to fully support storing collisions.  With that
in mind, why not just simplify this and say we have no plans to provide
support for supporting two files with the same sha1 and put the code in
place in 1.9.x to block this from happening.  This removes the need for
people to add hooks and it solves the problem.

If and when someone can state enough of a need for storing files with the
same sha1 let them step forward with a proposal and code for how to do
this.  Until then it seems like just flat out blocking this from happening
is better then a half hearted attempt to support it.

This approach does not need any knobs or hooks.


-- 
Thanks

Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/

Re: [PATCH] reject SHA1 collisions (was: Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?)

[Stefan Sperling]

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 03:44:22PM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, May 09, 2017 at 15:25:23 +0200:
> > This could be further extended by the config knob to give users a choice.
> > I don't see a good way of adding such a knob in a patch release, though.
> 
> Just give the knob a name that indicates it's not forward compatible?
> 
> For illustration, if the knob in 1.10 will be called "foo", then the
> knob in 1.9.6 could be named "SVN_NFC_foo", where the prefix stands for
> "svn not forward compatible".

For a patch release I would generally prefer a simple solution that
does not add knobs. A fix that people can install and forget about
is going to be appreciated the most after all the hype and worrying
this problem has caused.

And I wonder who would really want to tweak such a knob in the first place.
People who really wish to store SHA1 collisions in their FSFS repository
could just disable rep-sharing, couldn't they?

Re: [PATCH] reject SHA1 collisions (was: Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?)

[Daniel Shahaf]

Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, May 09, 2017 at 15:25:23 +0200:
> This could be further extended by the config knob to give users a choice.
> I don't see a good way of adding such a knob in a patch release, though.

Just give the knob a name that indicates it's not forward compatible?

For illustration, if the knob in 1.10 will be called "foo", then the
knob in 1.9.6 could be named "SVN_NFC_foo", where the prefix stands for
"svn not forward compatible".

> Perhaps that could be done for 1.10.

Re: [PATCH] reject SHA1 collisions (was: Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?)

[Jacek Materna]

+1 on rejection.

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Mark Phippard  wrote:
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Stefan Sperling  wrote:
>>
>> On IRC, Branko and Johan raised concerns about the proposed backport.
>>
>> The proposed backport allows files with SHA1 collisions into the
>> repository
>> and avoids de-duplication of such content by the rep-cache. It fixes the
>> integrity problem with the rep-cache but other problems remain.
>
>
> This approach makes a lot of sense to me.
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
>
> Mark Phippard
> http://markphip.blogspot.com/



-- 

Jacek Materna
CTO

Assembla
210-410-7661

Re: [PATCH] reject SHA1 collisions (was: Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?)

[Mark Phippard]

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Stefan Sperling  wrote:

> On IRC, Branko and Johan raised concerns about the proposed backport.
>
> The proposed backport allows files with SHA1 collisions into the repository
> and avoids de-duplication of such content by the rep-cache. It fixes the
> integrity problem with the rep-cache but other problems remain.
>

This approach makes a lot of sense to me.



-- 
Thanks

Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/

[PATCH] reject SHA1 collisions (was: Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?)

[Stefan Sperling]

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 01:39:49PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:38:51AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:54:20AM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > % svnadmin load r2 < dump 
> > > <<< Started new transaction, based on original revision 1
> > >  * editing path : shattered-1.pdf ... done.
> > >  * editing path : shattered-2.pdf ...svnadmin: E200014: Checksum 
> > > mismatch for '/shattered-2.pdf':
> > >expected:  5bd9d8cabc46041579a311230539b8d1
> > >  actual:  ee4aa52b139d925f8d8884402b0a750c
> > > 
> > > zsh: exit 1 svnadmin load r2 < dump
> > > % 
> > > ]]]
> > > 
> > > That's with 1.9.5.  Is it fixed on trunk now?  I'm not sure whether
> > > r1785754 addresses that.
> > 
> > Yes, this is fixed on trunk :-)
> 
> I have now voted for and backported whatever I could to 1.9.x.
> 
> Please add your votes to the STATUS file as well so we can finally
> release these fixes (or improve them, if there are still concerns).

On IRC, Branko and Johan raised concerns about the proposed backport.

The proposed backport allows files with SHA1 collisions into the repository
and avoids de-duplication of such content by the rep-cache. It fixes the
integrity problem with the rep-cache but other problems remain.

Clients will still suffer from the consequences of having such files in
the repository. The RA layer cannot de-duplicate content, the working
copy's pristine store is broken by such content, etc.

So the question is whether we want to even store such content before all
parts of the system are ready to handle it. Some users will likely keep
asking for a way to reject this content because of the ripple effects
it can cause. Many users may perceive a risk even if "only" working copies
can be rendered unusable by committing such content, because dealing with
fallout can be highly disruptive to the actual work people have to get done.

We can block such content from entering the repository with a patch such
as the one below. This check will only be done if rep-sharing is active.
But since rep-sharing is active by default this patch will work for most
of our users.

This could be further extended by the config knob to give users a choice.
I don't see a good way of adding such a knob in a patch release, though.
Perhaps that could be done for 1.10.

Index: subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/transaction.c
===
--- subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/transaction.c   (revision 1794541)
+++ subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/transaction.c   (working copy)
@@ -2430,12 +2430,10 @@ get_shared_rep(representation_t **old_rep,
   scratch_pool);
 
   /* A mismatch should be extremely rare.
-   * If it does happen, log the event and don't share the rep. */
+   * If it does happen, reject the commit. */
   if (!same || err)
 {
-  /* SHA1 collision or worse.
- We can continue without rep-sharing, but warn.
-*/
+  /* SHA1 collision or worse. */
   svn_stringbuf_t *old_rep_str
 = svn_fs_fs__unparse_representation(*old_rep,
 ffd->format, FALSE,
@@ -2449,15 +2447,11 @@ get_shared_rep(representation_t **old_rep,
   const char *checksum__str
 = svn_checksum_to_cstring_display(, scratch_pool);
 
-  err = svn_error_createf(SVN_ERR_FS_AMBIUGOUS_CHECKSUM_REP,
-  err, "SHA1 of reps '%s' and '%s' "
-  "matches (%s) but contents differ",
-  old_rep_str->data, rep_str->data,
-  checksum__str);
-
-  (fs->warning)(fs->warning_baton, err);
-  svn_error_clear(err);
-  *old_rep = NULL;
+  return svn_error_createf(SVN_ERR_FS_AMBIUGOUS_CHECKSUM_REP,
+   err, "SHA1 of reps '%s' and '%s' "
+   "matches (%s) but contents differ",
+   old_rep_str->data, rep_str->data,
+   checksum__str);
 }
 
   /* Restore FILE's read / write position. */

Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?

[Daniel Shahaf]

Stefan Sperling wrote on Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 19:40:10 +0200:
> Should we disable ra_serf's callback for fetching content from the
> pristine store instead of from the repository when SHA1 matches?
> This could be done without a format change.

On IRC today, Johan and I both think that that optimisation should be
disabled, since correctness has priority over performance.

Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?

[Stefan Sperling]

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 11:38:51AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:54:20AM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > % svnadmin load r2 < dump 
> > <<< Started new transaction, based on original revision 1
> >  * editing path : shattered-1.pdf ... done.
> >  * editing path : shattered-2.pdf ...svnadmin: E200014: Checksum 
> > mismatch for '/shattered-2.pdf':
> >expected:  5bd9d8cabc46041579a311230539b8d1
> >  actual:  ee4aa52b139d925f8d8884402b0a750c
> > 
> > zsh: exit 1 svnadmin load r2 < dump
> > % 
> > ]]]
> > 
> > That's with 1.9.5.  Is it fixed on trunk now?  I'm not sure whether
> > r1785754 addresses that.
> 
> Yes, this is fixed on trunk :-)

I have now voted for and backported whatever I could to 1.9.x.

Please add your votes to the STATUS file as well so we can finally
release these fixes (or improve them, if there are still concerns).

Thanks!

Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?

[Stefan Sperling]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:54:20AM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> % svnadmin load r2 < dump 
> <<< Started new transaction, based on original revision 1
>  * editing path : shattered-1.pdf ... done.
>  * editing path : shattered-2.pdf ...svnadmin: E200014: Checksum mismatch 
> for '/shattered-2.pdf':
>expected:  5bd9d8cabc46041579a311230539b8d1
>  actual:  ee4aa52b139d925f8d8884402b0a750c
> 
> zsh: exit 1 svnadmin load r2 < dump
> % 
> ]]]
> 
> That's with 1.9.5.  Is it fixed on trunk now?  I'm not sure whether
> r1785754 addresses that.

Yes, this is fixed on trunk :-)

<<< Started new transaction, based on original revision 3
 * editing path : trunk/shattered-1.pdf ... done.
svnadmin: warning: apr_err=SVN_ERR_FS_AMBIUGOUS_CHECKSUM_REP
svnadmin: warning: W160067: SHA1 of reps '-1 3 381130 422435 
5bd9d8cabc46041579a311230539b8d1 38762cf7f55934b34d179ae6a4c80cadccbb7f0a 
2-2/_5' and '-1 0 381130 
422435 5bd9d8cabc46041579a311230539b8d1 
38762cf7f55934b34d179ae6a4c80cadccbb7f0a 2-2/_5' matches 
(38762cf7f55934b34d179ae6a4c80cadccbb7f0a) but contents differ
 * editing path : trunk/shattered-2.pdf ... done.

--- Committed revision 3 >>>

Of course, the working copy and RA protocols are still broken.
Editing both files and attempting a commit results in an error:

Sendingshattered-1.pdf
Sendingshattered-2.pdf
Transmitting file data ..subversion/svn/commit-cmd.c:185,
subversion/libsvn_client/commit.c:992,
subversion/libsvn_client/commit.c:156: (apr_err=SVN_ERR_CHECKSUM_MISMATCH)
svn: E200014: Commit failed (details follow):
subversion/libsvn_client/commit.c:904,
subversion/libsvn_client/commit_util.c:1933,
subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_crawler.c:1105,
subversion/libsvn_repos/commit.c:585,
subversion/libsvn_fs/fs-loader.c:1595,
subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/tree.c:3060,
subversion/libsvn_subr/checksum.c:658: (apr_err=SVN_ERR_CHECKSUM_MISMATCH)
svn: E200014: Base checksum mismatch on '/trunk/shattered-2.pdf':
   expected:  ee4aa52b139d925f8d8884402b0a750c
 actual:  5bd9d8cabc46041579a311230539b8d1

I suppose that is acceptable for now. The repository's health has priority.

Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?

[Daniel Shahaf]

Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 00:54:20 +:
> Incidentally: the error code added in r1785754 is misspelled:
> SVN_ERR_FS_AMBIUGOUS_CHECKSUM_REP should be
> SVN_ERR_FS_AMBIGUOUS_CHECKSUM_REP.
> ---^^
> 
> Not only in the error message, also in the code.

s/error message/log message/

Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?

[Daniel Shahaf]

Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 22:17:46 +0200:
> On 30.03.2017 21:38, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >Let's use jira or moinmoin to track all the different issues that need
> >looking into?  I count at least fsfs, fsx, svnadmin load, libsvn_wc, and
> >zhakov's change that Bert mentioned.
> 
> What is the problem with 'svnadmin load'?

It's not possible to load a dumpfile that contains a sha1 collision:

[[[
% wget https://shattered.it/static/shattered-1.pdf 
https://shattered.it/static/shattered-2.pdf
% svnadmin create r 
% svn co file://$PWD/r wc 
% cd wc 
wc% cp ../shattered-* . 
wc% svn add * 
wc% svn ci -madd 
wc% cd ../
% svnadmin create r2
% svnadmin dump -r > dump 
% svnadmin load r2 < dump 
<<< Started new transaction, based on original revision 1
 * editing path : shattered-1.pdf ... done.
 * editing path : shattered-2.pdf ...svnadmin: E200014: Checksum mismatch 
for '/shattered-2.pdf':
   expected:  5bd9d8cabc46041579a311230539b8d1
 actual:  ee4aa52b139d925f8d8884402b0a750c

zsh: exit 1 svnadmin load r2 < dump
% 
]]]

That's with 1.9.5.  Is it fixed on trunk now?  I'm not sure whether
r1785754 addresses that.

Incidentally: the error code added in r1785754 is misspelled:
SVN_ERR_FS_AMBIUGOUS_CHECKSUM_REP should be
SVN_ERR_FS_AMBIGUOUS_CHECKSUM_REP.
---^^

Not only in the error message, also in the code.

> It uses SHA1 and MD5 to verify that the data is valid
> but will not detect intended changes that transformed
> the dump stream from one valid / consistent state to
> another. Apart from that, the FS backend should now
> handle collisions just fine.
> 
> With FSFS and FSX fixed in /trunk (FSX not with the
> backport IMO), there is only the wc issue left. Not sure
> how much efficiency we want to sacrifice there. For
> instance, switching between branches will become
> expensive again.
> 
> -- Stefan^2.

Cheers,

Daniel

Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?

[Stefan Fuhrmann]

On 30.03.2017 21:38, Daniel Shahaf wrote:

Let's use jira or moinmoin to track all the different issues that need
looking into?  I count at least fsfs, fsx, svnadmin load, libsvn_wc, and
zhakov's change that Bert mentioned.


What is the problem with 'svnadmin load'?

It uses SHA1 and MD5 to verify that the data is valid
but will not detect intended changes that transformed
the dump stream from one valid / consistent state to
another. Apart from that, the FS backend should now
handle collisions just fine.

With FSFS and FSX fixed in /trunk (FSX not with the
backport IMO), there is only the wc issue left. Not sure
how much efficiency we want to sacrifice there. For
instance, switching between branches will become
expensive again.

-- Stefan^2.

Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?

[Daniel Shahaf]

Let's use jira or moinmoin to track all the different issues that need
looking into?  I count at least fsfs, fsx, svnadmin load, libsvn_wc, and
zhakov's change that Bert mentioned.

(We can use SVN-4673 as a parent issue.)

Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?

[Stefan Sperling]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:04:29PM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote:
> The server side fixes currently need a third vote for backporting. These
> fixes are nominated for 1.8.x and 1.9.x.
> 
> I don’t think we can really do much more on the released versions without a
> backwards incompatible change to the working copy… And I’m still not
> convinced that we should really change the WC code just to support using
> Subversion to explicitly store collisions.

Storing the collisions in the WC without a format change is not my goal
either. I don't think anyone is trying to convince you of that.
But I think it would be good if the client did not throw errors we do
not anticipate. It could at least try to detect the situation and error
out in a reasonable way.

Has anyone tested what happens on the client side now with the FSFS
fixed applied? I did not yet find time to do so.  

And does 'svnadmin dump/load' work now or is it still broken if the
SHA1-colliding PDF files are in the repository?

Should we disable ra_serf's callback for fetching content from the
pristine store instead of from the repository when SHA1 matches?
This could be done without a format change.

> On trunk there are even more problems, as Ivan committed a change that made
> us rely on sha-1 even more than before to check for local changes. I already
> pinged that thread a few times, but there is no progress there.

Yes, I agree this should be looked at.

RE: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?

[Bert Huijben]

The server side fixes currently need a third vote for backporting. These fixes 
are nominated for 1.8.x and 1.9.x.

I don’t think we can really do much more on the released versions without a 
backwards incompatible change to the working copy… And I’m still not convinced 
that we should really change the WC code just to support using Subversion to 
explicitly store collisions.



On trunk there are even more problems, as Ivan committed a change that made us 
rely on sha-1 even more than before to check for local changes. I already 
pinged that thread a few times, but there is no progress there.

If no progress is reported on the discussed points I would like to see that 
change to notice differences (at least temporarily) reverted.

 Bert

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Stefan Sperling
Sent: donderdag 30 maart 2017 13:23
To: Paul Hammant
Cc: Subversion Development
Subject: Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 06:30:55AM -0400, Paul Hammant wrote:
> My apologies. When I wrote "No patch releases though, right?" my intention
> was to communicate "No patch releases YET though, right?

There are no patch releases yet, no.

Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?

[Stefan Sperling]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 06:30:55AM -0400, Paul Hammant wrote:
> My apologies. When I wrote "No patch releases though, right?" my intention
> was to communicate "No patch releases YET though, right?

There are no patch releases yet, no.

Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?

[Paul Hammant]

My apologies. When I wrote "No patch releases though, right?" my intention
was to communicate "No patch releases YET though, right?

-ph

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Branko Čibej  wrote:

> On 30.03.2017 12:26, Paul Hammant wrote:
> >> Eh? Patch release changelogs get written when the patch is released.
> > I'm not following what you're saying there.
>
>
> The fact that there's no entry for 1.9.6 in CHANGES does not mean that
> 1.9.6 will not be released, nor does it mean that the hash collision
> related fixes won't be backported. The changelog is updated as part of
> the patch release process, not before.
>
> -- Brane
>

Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?

[Branko Čibej]

On 30.03.2017 12:26, Paul Hammant wrote:
>> Eh? Patch release changelogs get written when the patch is released.
> I'm not following what you're saying there.


The fact that there's no entry for 1.9.6 in CHANGES does not mean that
1.9.6 will not be released, nor does it mean that the hash collision
related fixes won't be backported. The changelog is updated as part of
the patch release process, not before.

-- Brane

Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?

[Paul Hammant]

> Eh? Patch release changelogs get written when the patch is released.

I'm not following what you're saying there.

Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?

[Branko Čibej]

On 30.03.2017 12:01, Paul Hammant wrote:
> No patch releases though, right?
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/CHANGES

Eh? Patch release changelogs get written when the patch is released.

Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?

[Paul Hammant]

No patch releases though, right?

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/CHANGES

Is that because, "the server can store the offending PDFs" isn't enough of
a releasable in its own right?  Or because the "the server can store the
offending PDFs" specifically is imperfect and unreleasable in some way?

- Paul

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Stefan Sperling  wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:30:57AM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Hi, devs. Re. the SHA-1 fixes contemplated or in-the-works for SVN 1.8
> and
> > 1.9: Any idea on how those are coming along and when they might see the
> > light of day (in patch releases)?
> >
> > - Julian
> >
>
> As far as I can tell, these changes touch FSFS only. So while the server
> can now store the offending PDF files, nothing has been done yet regarding
> other areas which have problems with these files such as the working copy
> (pristine store) and ra_serf (avoids fetching files already stored in
> pristine store).
>
> And perhaps there are more areas which have problems? I am not aware
> of any effort to figure that out.
>

Re: Progress on SHA-1 fixes in patch releases?

[Stefan Sperling]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:30:57AM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> Hi, devs. Re. the SHA-1 fixes contemplated or in-the-works for SVN 1.8 and
> 1.9: Any idea on how those are coming along and when they might see the
> light of day (in patch releases)?
> 
> - Julian
> 

As far as I can tell, these changes touch FSFS only. So while the server
can now store the offending PDF files, nothing has been done yet regarding
other areas which have problems with these files such as the working copy
(pristine store) and ra_serf (avoids fetching files already stored in
pristine store).

And perhaps there are more areas which have problems? I am not aware
of any effort to figure that out.