Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
use hash algo that's robust against collisions - #8630
Merged
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Arthur Schiwon <blizzz@arthur-schiwon.de>
nickvergessen
approved these changes
Mar 5, 2018
This was referenced Mar 5, 2018
blizzz
commented
Mar 5, 2018
MemberAuthor
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I've had a strange scenario and did not found another explanation (and way to trigger) that a hash collision. md5 is fragile to it… memcached has a key length limit of 250 byte which still won't be hurt.
We use md5 in several other places, also on permanent basis. Perhaps I am only paranoid. For now just those changes, that can also go back easily.