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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 18:25:12 +0200 From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> CC: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, Chris Peterson <cpeterso@...terso.com>, tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, tpm@...horst.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH] drivers/net: remove network drivers' last few uses of IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM Herbert Xu wrote: > On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:19:49PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: >> Just think a little bit: system has no randomness source except the >> hardware RNG. you do your strange randomness verification. if it fails >> what do you do? You don't feed anything into your entropy pool and all >> your random output is predictable (just boot time) If you add anything >> predictable from another source it's still predictable, no difference. > > You can continue to feed data into the pool even if it fails the > test. You just keep the entropy value same as before. You could do that, but what advantage would it have? I don't think it's worth running the FIPS test, or rather requiring the user land daemon and leaving behind most of the userbase just for this. -Andi -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists