The weak hash isnât there to speed up hashing. Itâs there to speed up other things, at the expense of slower hashing.
Thatâs why it says âas it has an acceptable performance impactâ. That is, using weak hashing has a small performance impact on hashing, but it will bring gains, so itâs worth turning it on.
If it had a large impact on hashing performance, then that would outweigh the benefit of the weak hashing, so it would be disabled.
Exactly so. Just to clarify even more, the question is whether we do just SHA256 or SHA256+weakhash, where the latter will always be slower but has other efficiency advantages. If itâs too slow (which it is on some hardware) we skip it.
Bit late to react, but I got here looking for the same message as for me it also looks rather ⌠contradictory.
Iâll agree that âhas an acceptable impactâ is the correct wording, but itâs not perfect. Iâd rather go for something along the lines of: âWeak hash enabled as the benefits outweigh the performance impact.â
Additionally, canât we call âweak hashâ something more âpositiveâ? Right now it feels like weâre enabling an inferior system and it even costs us performance?!? (**)
My 2 cents,
Roby
(**: Yes, I understand that itâs likely the correct technical term, but people reading their logs will get confused. I was =) And googling âweak hashâ doesnât really help much either)