linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v2] gcc-plugins: latent

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:   Tue, 5 Apr 2022 14:38:58 +0200
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gcc-plugins: latent_entropy: use /dev/urandom

Hi Kees,

On 4/5/22, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 12:47:14AM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 8:49 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>> > This mixes two changes: the pRNG change and the "use urandom if
>> > non-deterministic" change. I think these should be split, so the pRNG
>> > change can be explicitly justified.
>>
>> Alright, I'll split those. Or, more probably, just drop the xorshift
>> thing. There's not actually a strong reason for preferring xorshift. I
>> did it because it produces more uniformity and is faster to compute and
>> all that. But none of that stuff actually matters here. It was just a
>> sort of "well I'm at it..." thing.
>
> Well, it's nice to have and you already wrote it, so seems a waste to
> just drop it. :)
>
>> > >  static struct plugin_info latent_entropy_plugin_info = {
>> > > -     .version        = "201606141920vanilla",
>> > > +     .version        = "202203311920vanilla",
>> >
>> > This doesn't really need to be versioned. We can change this to just
>> > "vanilla", IMO.
>>
>> Okay. I suppose you want it to be in a different patch too, right? In
>> which case I'll leave it out and maybe get to it later. (I suppose one
>> probably needs to double check whether it's used for anything
>> interesting like dwarf debug info or whatever, where maybe it's
>> helpful?)
>
> Hm, I don't think it shows up anywhere, but you can just drop the hunk
> that touch it. I can remove them all with a separate patch later.
>

Okay. That's what I did here
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220404230709.124508-1-Jason@zx2c4.com/
so awaiting your merge. (I still find all aspects of v2 more
preferable for a variety of weak reasons in case you'd like to merge
that instead, but v3 is available now.)

Jason