linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] random: use chacha20 for get_random

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: <CAHmME9p3xc6Q2Qu6kEP1O3PmvLKhpWcwjHfX8AQyibC0Quh65g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 21 Jan 2017 01:16:56 +0100
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] random: use chacha20 for get_random_int/long

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> But there is a shared pointer, which is used both for the dedicated
> u32 array and the dedicated u64 array.  So when you increment the
> pointer for the get_random_u32, the corresponding entry in the u64
> array is wasted, no?

No, it is not a shared pointer. It is a different pointer with a
different batch. The idea is that each function gets its own batch.
That way there's always perfect alignment. This is why I'm suggesting
that my approach is faster.

Would you like me to roll your (slower) bitshifting idea as v2, or can
we stick with my v1?

Jason