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]

Date:	23 Jul 2014 07:52:53 -0400
From:	"George Spelvin" <linux@...izon.com>
To:	hannes@...essinduktion.org, tytso@....edu
Cc:	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux@...izon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] random: introduce getrandom(2) system call

I keep wishing for a more general solution.  For example, some way to
have a "spare" extra fd that could be accessed with a special O_NOFAIL
flag.

That would allow any number of library functions to not fail, such as
logging from nasty corner cases.

But you'd have to provide one per thread, and block non-fatal signals
while it was open, so you don't get reentrancy problems.  Ick.

This overly-specialized system call (and worse yet, a blocking
system call that you can't put into a poll() loop) just feels ugly
to me.  Is it *absolutely* necessary?

For example, how about simply making getentropy() a library function that
aborts if it can't open /dev/urandom?  If you're suffering fd exhaustion,
you're being DoSed already.
--
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/