| 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: <1406108835.2603.144733749.2407B407@webmail.messagingengine.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:47:15 +0200 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org> To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> Cc: George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] random: introduce getrandom(2) system call Hi, On Wed, Jul 23, 2014, at 00:59, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > But why would you need to use GRND_RANDOM in your scenario, and accept > your application potentially getting stalled and stuck in amber for > perhaps hours? If you are going to accept your application stalling > like that, you can do the pointer arithmatic. It's really not hard, > and someone who can't do that, again, shouldn't be allowd anywhere > near crypto code in the first place (and if they are, they'll probably > be making lots of other, equally fatal if not more so, newbie > mistakes). I favored the idea of having a non-failing non-partial-read getrandom syscall. But I am with you if it often causes long stalls that we should stick to the old semantics. Thanks, Hannes -- 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