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]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgFrRCL3WP7vyuZ-92xyqb97ADc=JNyyVCucZ1Q9oh8TA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 15 Sep 2019 12:08:31 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        "Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@...il.com>,
        "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Ray Strode <rstrode@...hat.com>,
        William Jon McCann <mccann@....edu>,
        zhangjs <zachary@...shancloud.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2] random: optionally block in getrandom(2) when the
 CRNG is uninitialized

On Sun, Sep 15, 2019 at 11:37 AM Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
>
> I also wanted to ask, are we going to enforce the same strategy on
> /dev/urandom ?

Right now the strategy for /dev/urandom is "print a one-line warning,
then do the read".

I don't see why we should change that. The whole point of urandom has
been that it doesn't block, and doesn't use up entropy.

It's the _blocking_ behavior that has always been problematic. It's
why almost nobody uses /dev/random in practice.

getrandom() looks like /dev/urandom in not using up entropy, but had
that blocking behavior of /dev/random that was problematic.

And exactly the same way it was problematic for /dev/random users, it
has now shown itself to be problematic for getrandom().

My suggested patch left the /dev/random blocking behavior, because
hopefully people *know* about the problems there.

And hopefully people understand that getrandom(GRND_RANDOM) has all
the same issues.

If you want that behavior, you can still use GRND_RANDOM or
/dev/random, but they are simply not acceptable for boot-time
schenarios. Never have been,

... exactly the way the "block forever" wasn't acceptable for getrandom().

                Linus

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ