[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190917173225.GE27999@1wt.eu>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 19:32:25 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>
Cc: "Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Vito Caputo <vcaputo@...garu.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>
Subject: Re: Linux 5.3-rc8
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 07:30:36PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Di, 17.09.19 21:58, Alexander E. Patrakov (patrakov@...il.com) wrote:
>
> > I am worried that the getrandom delays will be serialized, because processes
> > sometimes run one after another. If there are enough chained/dependent
> > processes that ask for randomness before it is ready, the end result is
> > still a too-big delay, essentially a failed boot.
> >
> > In other words: your approach of adding delays only makes sense for heavily
> > parallelized boot, which may not be the case, especially for embedded
> > systems that don't like systemd.
>
> As mentioned elsewhere: once the pool is initialized it's
> initialized. This means any pending getrandom() on the whole system
> will unblock at the same time, and from the on all getrandom()s will
> be non-blocking.
He means that all process will experience this delay until there's enough
entropy.
Willy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists