[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLC9aj3KewbFb2tHoisjvqj4KkMwpA6KiZ7y8k15WWOwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 23:13:54 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@...cle.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andreas Dilger <aedilger@...il.com>,
John Sobecki <john.sobecki@...cle.com>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
jakub@...hat.com, drepper@...hat.com,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH V3] binfmt_elf.c: use get_random_int() to fix
entropy depleting
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@...cle.com> wrote:
> On 11/07/2012 02:21 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> I still want to hear at least from Ted about this changes -- we would
>> be potentially increasing the predictability of these bytes...
>
> We would not increasing that if this routine would be used for AT_RANDOM
> only(and if the array keeping aligned to 4 bytes).
> Otherwise, it would be, so let's waiting for further feedbacks.
get_random_int() comes from a different pool than get_random_bytes(),
IIUC. I'd like to hear some convincing reasoning as to why this change
doesn't compromise predictability. :)
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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