[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160426194155.GB11111@amd>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 21:41:55 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Sandy Harris <sandyinchina@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
John Denker <jsd@...n.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: random(4) changes
Hi!
> > > > When dropping the add_disk_randomness function in the legacy
> > > > /dev/random, I
> > > > would assume that without changes to add_input_randomness and
> > > > add_interrupt_randomness, we become even more entropy-starved.
> > >
> > > Sure, but your system isn't doing anything magical here. The main
> > > difference is that you assume you can get almost a full bit of entropy
> > > out of each interrupt timing, where I'm much more conservative and
> > > assume we can only get 1/64th of a bit out of each interrupt timing.
> >
> > Maybe 1/64th of a bit is a bit too conservative? I guess we really
> > have more than one bit of entropy on any system with timestamp
> > counter....
> >
> > Making it 1/2 of bit (or something) should be very easy way to improve
> > entropy early during boot...
>
> I can easily settle on 1/2 bit here. The LRNG currently uses 0.9 bits which
> are based on measurements plus a safety margin. But I see no issue to even
> lower it further to, say, 1/2.
No, you don't need to change anything. But maybe mainline rng should
change.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists