[<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