[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150827061750.GE24088@linux-rxt1.site>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 14:17:50 +0800
From: joeyli <jlee@...e.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: "Lee, Chun-Yi" <joeyli.kernel@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>,
Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/16] x86/efi: Get entropy through EFI random number
generator protocol
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 09:26:20PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug, at 02:16:25PM, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> > +
> > +static unsigned long efi_get_rng64(efi_system_table_t *sys_table,
> > + void **rng_handle)
> > +{
> > + const struct efi_config *efi_early = __efi_early();
> > + efi_rng_protocol_64 *rng = NULL;
> > + efi_guid_t rng_proto = EFI_RNG_PROTOCOL_GUID;
> > + u64 *handles = (u64 *)(unsigned long)rng_handle;
> > + efi_status_t status;
> > + unsigned long rng_number;
> > +
> > + status = efi_call_early(handle_protocol, handles[0],
> > + &rng_proto, (void **)&rng);
> > + if (status != EFI_SUCCESS)
> > + efi_printk(sys_table, "Failed to get EFI_RNG_PROTOCOL handles\n");
> > +
> > + if (status == EFI_SUCCESS && rng) {
> > + status = efi_early->call((unsigned long)rng->get_rng, rng, NULL,
> > + sizeof(rng_number), &rng_number);
>
> Actually, one thing just occurred to me - you're not passing an
> RNGAlgorithm value and are relying upon the firmware's default
> implementation.
>
> I don't think that's a safe bet, the default could be anything and
> might vary across implementations.
>
I didn't set specific RNGAlgorithm because different BIOS may
set different algorithm as default, it's also a kind of random situation
to provide uncertainty.
On the other hand, if the specific RNGAlgorithm doesn't support by BIOS
then EFI stub still need use BIOS's _default_ algorithm to get random
value.
> Can we do a little better here and pick a "preferred" algorithm
> instead of the default?
>
> --
> Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
Per EDK2 implementation, EFI_RNG_ALGORITHM_SP800_90_CTR_256 is the default
algorithm that provided by driver, and EFI_RNG_ALGORITHM_RAW is the second
algorithm supported by EDK2. BIOS vendor need to write driver to support
others.
Maybe using EFI_RNG_ALGORITHM_SP800_90_CTR_256 as the default RNGAlgorithm
in efi_random can cover the most widely UEFI implementation, but when BIOS
do not support EFI_RNG_ALGORITHM_SP800_90_CTR_256 then kernel still need
use BIOS's _default_ setting.
I hope your suggestion.
Thanks a lot!
Joey Lee
--
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