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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 3 Oct 2013 12:39:08 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
	Peng Tao <tao.peng@....com>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nikita Danilov <nikita@...sterfs.com>
Subject: lustre: why does cfs_get_random_bytes() exist?

I've been auditing uses of get_random_bytes() since there are places
where get_random_bytes() is getting used where something weaker, such
as prandom_u32() is quite sufficient.  Basically, if kernel code just
needs a random number which does not have any cryptographic
requirements (such as in ext[234]. which gets the new block group used
for inode allocations using get_random_bytes), then prandom_u32()
should be used instead of get_random_bytes() to save CPU overhead and
to reduce the drain on the /dev/urandom's entropy pool.

Typically, the reason for this is either for historical reasons, since
prandom_u32() hadn't existed when the code was written, or because
historical code was cut and pasted into newer code.

When I came across staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/prng.c, I saw
something which is **really** weird.  It defines a cfs_rand() which is
functionally identical to prandom_u32().  More puzzlingly, it also
defines cfs_get_random_bytes() which calls get_random_bytes() and then
xor's the result with cfs_rand().  That last step has no cryptographic
effect, so I'm really wondering who thought this as a good idea and/or
necessary.

What I think should happen is that staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/prng.c
should be removed, and calls to cfs_rand() should get replaced
prandom_u32(), and cfs_get_random_bytes() should get replaced with
get_random_bytes().

Does this sound reasonable?

Cheers,

						- Ted
--
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