linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] drivers/char/random.c: Is reducing locking range like this safe?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 8 Jun 2014 21:35:53 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>
Cc:	hpa@...ux.intel.com, price@....edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] drivers/char/random.c: Is reducing locking range
 like this safe?

On Sun, Jun 08, 2014 at 08:05:24PM -0400, George Spelvin wrote:
> 
> The problem I started trying to solve is readers (entropy extractors)
> monopolizing the pool lock and stalling writers (entropy mixers), which
> are supposed to be fast and low overhead.

Which writer are you worried about, specifically?  A userspace write
to /dev/random from rgnd?

And have you measured this to be something significant, or is this a
theoretical concern.  If you've measured it, what's the conditions
where this is stalling an entropy mixer a significant amount of time?

      	      	       	  	  	  - Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/