linux-kernel - Re: AT_ENTROPY1 and AT_ENTROPY2 values for include/linux/auxvec.h

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: <4676601A.7070209@gentoo.org>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:36:10 +0200
From:	Alexander Gabert <pappy@...too.org>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hardened@...too.org
Subject: Re: AT_ENTROPY1 and AT_ENTROPY2 values for include/linux/auxvec.h

Arjan van de Ven schrieb:
>> Hence the config option for the kernel- it's philosophy at Gentoo to 
>> make choices available to users how they want their systems to behave, 
>> even on the expense of added complexity and need to "understand" how 
>> things work in the first place.
>>     
>
> While I am not opposed to choice, I am opposed to having too finegrained
> kernel config options. In your view, every single kernel patch would be
> a config option... I much rather have config options for "important" big
> changes, not for something this small. Another argument is that this
> kind of userspace interface is better off being always there or never;
> making this variable serves no-one.
>
>
>
>   
Hi again,

as said, i'm not voting for getting the specific example patch into 
kernel source.
All i came for and would like to see is the two numbers into the 
upstream header file to avoid future namespace clashes (as said in the 
original mail).

I honestly don't know how to follow the discussion to implement this 
kind of entropy given via auxv to userland- if you (the kernel devs) 
think it makes sense the way you want it you as upstream devs can do it 
all the way you like it- i can always change it with a patch for my own 
needs in my own sources.  I can't say anything at all about all of this 
because i don't know what is important from your point of view as kernel 
maintainers and what is not.  I understand your concerns and know that 
we are talking from different perspectives, thus it is probably normal 
that our interests and technical solutions vary.

However, as said, the only thing important for me is to not use 
"arbitrary" chosen numbers for the AT_ENTROPY1 and 2 values and later 
have problems when my "private" numbers suddenly are assigned to a 
different thing by "official" kernel devs.  That would be bad for me and 
this is what i want to avoid in the first place.

So please tell me what i can do about the requirements and the time and 
what the usual process is for asking how to get the numbers into the 
kernel so i can start using them for my own work.

Thanks in advance,

Alex

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/