[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACXcFm=ysn15Lh9Exeo8nKEAuBoZ7pB3eDesL_P_Ne3Kaxcunw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:26:23 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <sandyinchina@...il.com>
To: David Jaša <djasa@...hat.com>
Cc: Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Jason Cooper <cryptography@...edaemon.net>,
John Denker <jsd@...n.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] /dev/random - a new approach
David Jaša <djasa@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> BTW when looking at an old BSI's issue with Linux urandom that Jarod
> Wilson tried to solve with this series:
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-crypto/msg06113.html
> I was thinking:
> 1) wouldn't it help for large urandom consumers if kernel created a DRBG
> instance for each of them? It would likely enhance performance and solve
> BSI's concern of predicting what numbers could other urandom consumers
> obtain at cost of memory footprint
> and then, after reading paper associated with this series:
> 2) did you evaluate use of intermediate DRBG fed by primary generator to
> instantiate per-node DRBG's? It would allow initialization of all
> secondary DRBGs right after primary generator initialization.
Theodore Ts'o, the random maintainer, already has a patch that
seems to deal with this issue. He has posted more than one
version & I'm not sure this is the best or latest, but ...
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/30/22
Powered by blists - more mailing lists