Patch 1639: use Crypto.Hash.SHA256.hashlazy in Darcs.Util.Hash - Darcs bug tracker

Title	use Crypto.Hash.SHA256.hashlazy in Darcs.Util.Hash
Superseder		Nosy List
Related Issues
Status	accepted	Assigned To
Milestone

Created on 2018-02-08.00:42:31 by bfrk, last changed 2018-03-27.15:51:18 by bfrk.

Files
File name	Status	Uploaded	Type	Edit	Remove
suppress-import-warning-after-sha1-api-change.dpatch		gh, 2018-03-21.17:42:22	application/octet-stream
use-crypto_hash_sha256_hashlazy-in-darcs_util_hash.dpatch		bfrk, 2018-02-08.00:42:31	application/x-darcs-patch
use-crypto_hash_sha256_hashlazy-in-darcs_util_hash.dpatch		gh, 2018-02-09.20:09:33	application/octet-stream
use-crypto_hash_sha256_hashlazy-in-darcs_util_hash.dpatch		gh, 2018-03-15.02:36:13	application/octet-stream

See mailing list archives for discussion on individual patches.

Messages
msg19858 (view)	Author: gh	Date: 2018-02-08.18:57:38
Do we know why we have at the same time Darcs.Util.Hash and Darcs.Util.Crypt.SHA256 ?
msg19865 (view)	Author: gh	Date: 2018-02-09.20:09:33
Answer: Darcs.Util.Hash is from the hashed-storage code which was merged into Darcs in 2011, while Darcs.Util.Crypt.{SHA1\|SHA256} are Darcs's earlier modules. I'm attaching the following two cleanup patches, work in progress: patch f7553052a1f0b396c38db7f6459ea815897de5c0 Author: Guillaume Hoffmann <guillaumh@gmail.com> Date: Fri Feb 9 16:44:29 -03 2018 * move sha256sum code to Darcs.Util.Hash patch 6547d0ca5491adc0c7e42b37b1887d528612a919 Author: Guillaume Hoffmann <guillaumh@gmail.com> Date: Fri Feb 9 17:02:31 -03 2018 * move Darcs.Util.Crypt.SHA1 to Darcs.Util.SHA1 The next step would be to switch to cryptonite and remove the Darcs.Util.SHA1 module altogether. Attachments use-crypto_hash_sha256_hashlazy-in-darcs_util_hash.dpatch
msg19867 (view)	Author: gh	Date: 2018-02-10.00:22:01
Careful that I have experienced hash failures with the whole set of patches (yours and mine)...
msg19869 (view)	Author: bfrk	Date: 2018-02-10.15:39:09
Your last remark is a bit cryptic (pun unintentional). Could you elaborate?
msg19874 (view)	Author: gh	Date: 2018-02-10.19:03:16
Yes, sorry. With a locally compiled Darcs with these 3 patches, it seemed that it recorded a patch with an incorrect hash. After recording a patch I could not even run "darcs log" or "darcs amend" because said patch could not be found. The message in question was "hash failure". I had to manually edit _darcs/hashed_inventory and run "darcs repair" t ohavea useable repository. But I do not know which of the patches created the issue!
msg19971 (view)	Author: gh	Date: 2018-03-15.02:36:13
The culprit was me, with my first patch that incorrectly used the 'encode' function of Codec.Binary.Base16 instead of the one of Data.ByteString.Base16 , which resulted in uppercase hexadecimal strings (..89ABCD..) instead of lowercase. This is fixed, and I modified the bundle as a single patch that moves all sha1 and sha256 functions to Darcs.Util.Hash. The next step should be to use cryptonite. I'm screening the bundle in the meantime. Attachments use-crypto_hash_sha256_hashlazy-in-darcs_util_hash.dpatch
msg20000 (view)	Author: gh	Date: 2018-03-22.18:38:10
(Self-)accept.
msg20053 (view)	Author: bfrk	Date: 2018-03-27.15:51:18
Cool, very much appreciated from my POV.

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2018-02-08 00:42:31	bfrk	create
2018-02-08 18:57:38	gh	set	messages: + msg19858
2018-02-09 20:09:33	gh	set	files: + use-crypto_hash_sha256_hashlazy-in-darcs_util_hash.dpatch messages: + msg19865
2018-02-10 00:22:02	gh	set	messages: + msg19867
2018-02-10 15:39:09	bfrk	set	messages: + msg19869
2018-02-10 19:03:16	gh	set	messages: + msg19874
2018-03-15 02:36:13	gh	set	status: needs-screening -> needs-review files: + use-crypto_hash_sha256_hashlazy-in-darcs_util_hash.dpatch messages: + msg19971
2018-03-21 17:42:22	gh	set	files: + suppress-import-warning-after-sha1-api-change.dpatch
2018-03-22 18:38:10	gh	set	status: needs-review -> accepted messages: + msg20000
2018-03-27 15:51:18	bfrk	set	messages: + msg20053