linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] random: make /dev/urandom scalable for silly userspace programs

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: <1679147.StTJyR8tOp@tauon.atsec.com>
Date:	Mon, 02 May 2016 15:53:55 +0200
From:	Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	andi@...stfloor.org, sandyinchina@...il.com,
	cryptography@...edaemon.net, jsd@...n.com, hpa@...or.com,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] random: make /dev/urandom scalable for silly userspace programs

Am Montag, 2. Mai 2016, 09:48:57 schrieb Theodore Ts'o:

Hi Theodore,

> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 08:50:14AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > - entropy pool draining: when having a timer-based reseeding on a quiet
> > > system, the entropy pool can be drained during the expiry of the timer.
> > > So, I tried to handle that by increasing the timer by, say, 100 seconds
> > > for each new NUMA node. Note, even the baseline of 300 seconds with
> > > CRNG_RESEED_INTERVAL is low. When I experimented with that on a KVM
> > > test system and left it quiet, entropy pool draining was prevented at
> > > around 500 seconds.
> 
> One other thought.  If your KVM test system was completely quiet, then
> all of the entropy was coming from timer interrupts.  It is an open
> question whether an adversary could predict the bit of "entropy" you
> are generating with better than 50% probability if both the host and
> the guest system are quiescent.  And if they can, then maybe assuming
> one bit of entropy per interrupt might be a too optimistic.

It is not entirely quiet -- systemd likes to dump data on the disk once in a 
while. So, it is no timer interrupt that I see.

Note, my test system runs as tickless kernel.
> 
> This is especially true on bare metal where very often, especially on
> smaller machines, where there is a single oscillator from which all of
> the clocks on the SOC or motherboard are derived.  There is a reason
> why I was being ultra conservative in sampling 64 interrupts into a
> 32-bit fast-mix pool before mixing it into the input pool, and only
> crediting the pool with a single bit of entropy each time I did this.

As I do not think that we see any timer interrupts, I think this argument may 
not count.

Besides, I have not seen any timer interrupts lately (with or without a 
tickless kernel). Thus, which interrupt do you think is a timer interrupt?


Ciao
Stephan