Author pitrou
Recipients Arfrever, Mark.Shannon, PaulMcMillan, Zhiping.Deng, alex, barry, benjamin.peterson, christian.heimes, dmalcolm, georg.brandl, gvanrossum, haypo, jcea, pitrou, terry.reedy
Date 2012-01-04.11:02:59
SpamBayes Score 9.52989e-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, haypo, 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