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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 20 Jul 2014 17:25:40 -0700
From:	Dwayne Litzenberger <dlitz@...tz.net>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	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 Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 01:01:16PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>The getrandom(2) system call is a superset of getentropy(2).  When we
>add the support for this into glibc, it won't be terribly difficult
>nor annoying to drop the following in alongside the standard support
>needed for any new system call:
>
>int getentropy(void *buf, size_t buflen)
>{
>	int	ret;
>
>	ret = getentropy(buf, buflen, 0);
>	return (ret > 0) ? 0 : ret;
>}
>
>The reason for the additional flags is that I'm trying to solve more
>problems than just getentropy()'s raison d'etre.  The discussion of
>this is in the commit description; let me know if there bits that I
>could make clearer.

This could still return predictable bytes during early boot, though, 
right?

-- 
Dwayne C. Litzenberger <dlitz@...tz.net>
 OpenPGP: 19E1 1FE8 B3CF F273 ED17  4A24 928C EC13 39C2 5CF7
--
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/