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: <20140717173433.GQ1491@thunk.org> Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 13:34:33 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> To: Bob Beck <beck@...nbsd.org> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-abi <linux-abi@...r.kernel.org>, linux-crypto <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] random: introduce getrandom(2) system call On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:05:01AM -0600, Bob Beck wrote: > Hi Ted, yeah I understand the reasoning, it would be good if there was > a way to influence the various libc people to > ensure they manage to provide a getentropy(). I don't anticipate that to be a problem. And before they do, and/or if you are dealing with a system where the kernel has been upgraded, but not libc, you have your choice of either sticking with the binary_sysctl approach, or calling getrandom directly using the syscall method; and in that case, whether we use getrandom() or provide an exact getentropy() replacement system call isn't that much difference, since you'd have to have Linux-specific workaround code anyway.... - 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