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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+ddoy_v4y-cwgZmiKCe5DTARgkQYNntfNaY5msyADvtg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 17:34:48 -0800 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com> Cc: Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Satoru Takeuchi <satoru.takeuchi@...il.com>, linux-crypto <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH][RESEND 3] hwrng: add randomness to system from rng sources On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 16:11 -0500, Jason Cooper wrote: >> > In other words, if there are 4096 bits of "unknownness" in X to start >> > with, and I can get those same 4096 bits of "unknownness" back by >> > unmixing X' and Y, then there must still be 4096 bits of "unknownness" >> > in X'. If X' is 4096 bits long, then we've just proven that >> > reversibility means the attacker can know nothing about the contents of >> > X' by his choice of Y. >> >> Well, this reinforces my comfortability with loadable modules. The pool >> is already initialized by the point at which the driver is loaded. >> >> Unfortunately, any of the drivers in hw_random can be built in. When >> built in, hwrng_register is going to be called during the kernel >> initialization process. In that case, the unknownness in X is not 4096 >> bits, but far less. Also, the items that may have seeded X (MAC addr, >> time, etc) are discoverable by a potential attacker. This is also well >> before random-seed has been fed in. > > To which I would respond.. so? > > If the pool is in an attacker-knowable state at early boot, adding > attacker-controlled data does not make the situation any worse. In fact, > if the attacker has less-than-perfect control of the inputs, mixing more > things in will make things exponentially harder for the attacker. > > Put another way: mixing can't ever removes unknownness from the pool, it > can only add more. So the only reason you should ever choose not to mix > something into the pool is performance. Excellent. So it sounds like you're okay with my original patch as-is? -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