linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] Make /dev/urandom scalable

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]

Message-ID: <20150923232841.GK1747@two.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Thu, 24 Sep 2015 01:28:42 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@...il.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, tytso@....edu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Make /dev/urandom scalable

> I'd almost say that making the partitioning level configurable at
> build time might be useful.  I can see possible value to being able
> to at least partition down to physical cores (so, shared between
> HyperThreads on Intel processors, and between Compute Module cores
> on AMD processors), as that could potentially help people running
> large numbers of simulations in parallel.

I don't like build time size configurations. It doesn't make sense
for simulations to use urandom. It may make sense to have
some run time tunable, but for now that's too much complexity.
So I'll stay with the simpler per node pool for now.

-Andi
--
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/