➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author pitrou
Recipients Arfrever, Mark.Shannon, PaulMcMillan, Zhiping.Deng, alex, barry, benjamin.peterson, christian.heimes, dmalcolm, georg.brandl, gvanrossum, jcea, pitrou, terry.reedy, vstinner
Date 2012-01-04.11:02:59
SpamBayes Score 9.529889e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1325674980.48.0.821134686697.issue13703@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content 
> Using a fairly small value (4k) should not make the results much worse 
> from a security perspective, but might be problematic from a
> collision/distribution standpoint.

Keep in mind the average L1 data cache size is between 16KB and 64KB. 4KB is already a significant chunk of that.

Given a hash function's typical loop is to feed back the current result into the next computation, I don't see why a small value (e.g. 256 bytes) would be detrimental.
History
Date User Action Args
2012-01-04 11:03:00pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, gvanrossum, barry, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, jcea, vstinner, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, Arfrever, alex, dmalcolm, Mark.Shannon, Zhiping.Deng, PaulMcMillan
2012-01-04 11:03:00pitrousetmessageid: <1325674980.48.0.821134686697.issue13703@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2012-01-04 11:02:59pitroulinkissue13703 messages
2012-01-04 11:02:59pitroucreate