linux-kernel - Re: [Security] [patch] random: make get_random

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:	Fri, 15 May 2009 15:47:17 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jake Edge <jake@....net>, Alan@...a.kernel.org,
	security@...nel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, Linux@...a.kernel.org,
	List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
	Arjan@...a.kernel.org, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, stable@...nel.org,
	Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [Security] [patch] random: make get_random_int() more random


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 May 2009, Jake Edge wrote:
> >
> > It seems like this should be queued up for stable, yes?  I just 
> > saw the 2.6.29.4 review patches go out, but this wasn't part of 
> > it ...
> 
> Well, I was hoping to maybe have actual timing numbers from some 
> better hash, in case Matt can make one that is efficient enough. 
> So I committed the randomness improvement as a clear _improvement_ 
> over what we had, but it may not be the final version.

yep, it was just a quick hack really. If someone can do a stronger 
hash that also happens to be faster i guess we all will be happy 
campers. The performance figures showed room for improvement - how 
well are those hashes optimized? Many thousands of cycles ... is 
that really justified?

> That said, I guess the same argument can be used for pushing it 
> towards stable too. Even if we end up doing something fancier, the 
> patch is clearly not any worse than what we have currently.

Agreed. Havent seen any issues due to it. Jake, mind bouncing the 
commit notification to stable@...nel.org?

	Ingo
--
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/