linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] random: use chacha20 for get_random

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:12:35 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] random: use chacha20 for get_random_int/long

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 05:28:42PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 04:20:04PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > The core stuff is not in the networking tree. This is nothing to do
> > > with the networking tree in any way at all. There might be some
> > > confusion because the initial discussions came from the siphash stuff,
> > > which is in the networking tree, but Ted and I choose a different
> > > route, going with chacha instead of siphash. So this is 0%
> > > network-related.
> > 
> > Sorry, you are correct, I am confused here.
> > 
> > > > Ted, any objection to that?
> > > 
> > > Seems like either you pull or Ted pulls it.
> > 
> > Can you repost these?  They are gone from my patch queue.
> > 
> > Ted, any objection for me to take these?
> 
> If there are other changes to the relevant lines from the networking
> tree, sure.  Otherwise, I was planning on taking them, since I've got
> some other changes to drivers/char/random.c I was planning on sending
> through the next merge window anyway.
> 
> I don't think there will be any merge difficulties, but it's simpler
> if all of the changes to a particular file is going through one tree.
> But if you really want to take it, I'm not going to object any more
> than expressing a preference to do it the other way.

No problem with me for you to take it, just don't want it to slip
between the cracks and have to wait for the next merge window.

thanks,

greg k-h