linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH,RFC] random: make fast

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:	Sun, 22 Sep 2013 16:53:34 -0400
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@....de>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, dave.taht@...ferbloat.net,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] random: make fast_mix() honor its name

On Sun, 22 September 2013 17:27:52 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> 
> The structure of the mixing functions in /dev/random has been well
> studied, and validatetd in a number of different academic papers.  So
> I prefer to stick with the basic architecture, even as it is scaled
> down for speed reasons and beause the pool is smaller.

And I want to keep that function.  Essentially the point of fast_mix()
is to ratelimit _mix_pool_bytes().  Naïve ratelimiting would simply
discard the input once the ratelimit has been reached.  My proposal is
to still use the input bits, but use a really cheap mixing function.

Your version of fast_mix() failed in the "really cheap" department.
As a result, it showed up in profiles and at least one idiot (me)
reverted to naïve ratelimiting.  It could have been worse, I was
explicitly asked twice to just remove the call to
add_interrupt_randomness().

So don't think of my patch as weakening the mixing, but as
strengthening the ratelimited mixing.  If we have few interrupts,
_mix_pool_bytes() will be run once a second, if we have many it will
be run once every 64 interrupts.  And in the latter case, the input
for _mix_pool_bytes() is much better than with naïve ratelimiting.

And you should do the same for add_timer_randomness(), where again you
have ratelimiting.  Once trickle_thresh is reached your code simply
discards most randomness.  Only once in 4096 call do you use all the
bits you get - most of which will be predictable.  Why not use a cheap
mixing function for the other 4095 calls and ensure we have many good
bits on call 4096?

Jörn

--
You can't tell where a program is going to spend its time. Bottlenecks
occur in surprising places, so don't try to second guess and put in a
speed hack until you've proven that's where the bottleneck is.
-- Rob Pike
--
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/