[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1637466.ZUdUCXWXVs@tauon>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 16:27:54 +0200
From: Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, 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
Am Dienstag, 19. Mai 2015, 22:18:05 schrieb Herbert Xu:
Hi Herbert,
>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.
The current modification with patch 1 to random.c is the smallest change to
date. Is that then appropriate?
Herbert, based on your comment now, would the currently discussed patch with
waiting in the work queue in patch 3 appropriate? Or what would you like to
see changed?
Ciao
Stephan
--
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