linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH-v3 0/5] random: replace urandom pool with a CRNG

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160530205931.GI12629@thunk.org>
Date:	Mon, 30 May 2016 16:59:31 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	smueller@...onox.de, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	sandyinchina@...il.com, cryptography@...edaemon.net, jsd@...n.com,
	hpa@...or.com, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH-v3 0/5] random: replace urandom pool with a CRNG

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 10:53:22AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> It should work the same on larger systems, the solution scales
> naturally to lots of sockets. It's not clear it'll help enough on systems
> with a lot more cores per socket, like a Xeon Phi. But for now it should
> be good enough.

One change which I'm currently making is to use kmalloc_node() instead
of kmalloc() for the per-NUMA node, and I suspect *that* is going
to make a quite a lot of different on those systems where the ratio of
remote to local memory access times is larger (as I assume it probably
would be on really big systems).

						- Ted