linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] /dev/random: Insufficient of entropy on many architectures

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: <2947789.S63SVUbC3N@tauon>
Date:	Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:49:49 +0200
From:	Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, dave.taht@...ferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] /dev/random: Insufficient of entropy on many architectures

Am Dienstag, 10. September 2013, 17:14:54 schrieb Theodore Ts'o:

Hi Theodore,

>On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:48:00PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> So the first importance for random_get_fast_cycles() is that it needs
>> to be fast. What's most important next: number of bits or
>> high-frequency?
>High-frequency.  For example MIPS has a register which is bumped at
>every clock tick, modulo the number of lines in the TLB.  That's what
>we're probably going to end up using for MIPS, on the assumption that
>the time between interrupts is not likely going to be related to the
>number of lines in the TLB.  :-)
>
>Something like jiffies has lots of bits, but since it's updated at a
>much slower rate, it's not as useful if we are trying to measure
>uncertainity based on the interrupt time.  (Worse yet, depending on
>how the architecture handles the clock, there mgiht be a very high
>correlation between when the jiffies counter gets incremented and the
>timer interrupt....)
>
>And yes, we will need to make sure this gets well documented in the
>sources when we introduce random_get_fast_cycles()....

As general hunch on the speed, I would say is a simple test that two 
adjacent calls to obtain a time stamp show a delta. Eg.

__u64 tmp = random_get_fast_cycles() - random_get_fast_cycles();
if(0 == tmp)
	return fail;
return pass;


>
>Cheers,
>
>						- Ted


Ciao
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/