Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:39:59 +0100
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: Larry McVoy <lm@work.bitmover.com>, Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>,
       Benoit Poulot-Cazajous <Benoit.Poulot-Cazajous@jaluna.com>,
       Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>,
       Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>, walt <wa1ter@myrealbox.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel.bkbits.net off the air
Message-ID: <20031113163958.GM1649@x30.random>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0311102316330.980-100000@bigblue.dev.mdolabs.com> <3FB091C0.9050009@cyberone.com.au> <20031111150417.GF1649@x30.random> <03Nov13.095622cet.122129@mojo.it.advantest.de> <20031113145301.GJ1649@x30.random> <jen0b047ir.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <20031113162945.GB2462@work.bitmover.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20031113162945.GB2462@work.bitmover.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1015
Lines: 18

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 08:29:45AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> If we had this approach we wouldn't have caught the torjan horse in the
> CVS tree.  We checksum all the data, changed or not.  Your approach
> pushes that duty onto the end users, and let's have a show of hands,

the suggestion of the md5sum wasn't related to keeping the data
secure/robust, we don't want to move the "robustness" duty onto the end
users of course, we only want to know when we can break the rsync loop.
The fact we'll do a further check possibly with a signature on the
md5sums, is a bonus, but it's not meant to replace in any way the
robusteness effort on the server side and we don't do it for robustness,
we do it only for providing a means of coherency to the changesets in
the tree.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/