linux-kernel - Re: drivers/char/random.c: variable type mismatch

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: <50A3C3A8.4060509@atsec.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:15:36 +0100
From:	Stephan Mueller <stephan.mueller@...ec.com>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: drivers/char/random.c: variable type mismatch

On 08.11.2012 12:47:08, +0100, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:

Hi Theodore,

> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 01:32:38AM +0100, Stephan Mueller wrote:
>>
>> However, due to the fact that jiffies provides very few entropy, the
>> event value provides (almost) none, the majority of entropy comes from
>> the processor cycles. Assuming that the processor cycles increase once
>> per nanosecond, after 2**32 cycles (about 4 seconds), the counter wraps.
> 
> Sure, we can make this change, but it doesn't make as much difference
> as you think.  The high 32 bits gets incremented about ounce every 4
> seconds, while jiffies gets incremented once every 1/HZ seconds.  But
> the point is they are pretty well correlated (i.e., if you know the
> jiffies values A' and A'', and I know the high 32 bits of the cycles
> B', and you can determine the likely value of B'' to a very high
> degree of accuracy.  Values which are correlated don't actually
> entropy.
> 

I agree with the argument of correlation.

So, if the reduction of values with a known lack of entropy is of
interest, why not change the jiffies variable type too? There we know
that only the lower 32 bits are really relevant. Therefore, wouldn't be
a structure of

        struct {
                unsigned jiffies;
                unsigned cycles;
                unsigned num;
        } sample;

be more appropriate?

Thanks
Stephan

--
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/