linux-kernel - Re: [RFC HIFN 00/02]: RNG support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200711181127.28326.mb@bu3sch.de>
Date:	Sun, 18 Nov 2007 11:27:27 +0100
From:	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC HIFN 00/02]: RNG support

On Sunday 18 November 2007 05:04:01 Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 04:30:40AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >
> > On a related issue, I think the rng interface is not very suitable
> > for chips like HIFN that have a constant random bandwidth, it would
> > make a lot more sense to return the time to wait to the core, instead
> > of waiting 10us in all cases. 256 cycles at a speed of 266MHz comes
> > down to 0.96us, so we're waiting about 10 times as long as necessary.
> > Since its busy waiting anyway, I'd think that from a performance POV
> > constant polling or returning the exact amount of time would be more
> > reasonable.
> 
> I agree, a better interface would be to let the hardware do the
> blocking where necessary.
> 
> Michael, what do you think about this?

Patches are welcome. ;)

-- 
Greetings Michael.
-
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/