linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] random: introduce getrandom(2) system call

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: <20140720174104.GH5017@thunk.org>
Date:	Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:41:04 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Andreas Schwab <schwab@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-abi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, beck@...nbsd.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] random: introduce getrandom(2) system call

On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 07:27:42PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> writes:
> 
> > ERRORS
> > 	EINVAL		The buflen value was invalid.
> 
> Also on unknown flags?  Without that it would be impossible to probe for
> implemented flags.

We removed the cap on the buflen size (although if someone gives
something insanely large, it can get capped), so EINVAL will only
happen for unknown flags.  I'll fix the suggested man page.

	       	   	   	   	    - Ted

P.S. The reason why OpenBSD had a very strong opinion about returning
EIO for buflen greater than 256 bytes was they really wanted to pound
it into application writers than if they were trying to fetch more
than 256 bytes, they were probably Doing Something Wrong, and they
decided EIO was less subtle that EINVAL....

--
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/