| 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: <20150519141805.GA32663@gondor.apana.org.au> Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 22:18:05 +0800 From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>, pebolle@...cali.nl, andreas.steffen@...ongswan.org, sandyinchina@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] random: Blocking API for accessing nonblocking_pool On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 09:50:28AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > Finally, this is only going to block *once*, when the system is > initially botting up. Why is it so important that we get the > asynchronous nature of this right, and why can't we solve it simply by > just simply doing the work in a workqueue, with a completion barrier > getting triggered once /dev/random initializes itself, and just simply > blocking the module unload until /dev/random is initialized? I guess I'm still thinking of the old work queue code before Tejun's cmwq work. Yes blocking in a work queue should be fine as there is usually just one DRBG instance. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- 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