linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v12 3/4] Linux Random Number Generator

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: <20170718085212.GB25267@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:52:12 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Stephan Müller <smueller@...onox.de>
Cc:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <jason@...c4.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v12 3/4] Linux Random Number Generator

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:45:12AM +0200, Stephan Müller wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2017, 10:32:10 CEST schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
> 
> Hi Greg,
> 
> > external references do not last as long as the kernel change log does :(
> 
> What would be the best way to cite a 50+ page document? I got a suggestion to 
> include the ASCII version of the document into Documentation/ -- but for the 
> first inclusion request, I was not sure whether to add such large document.
> > 
> > Also a "wholesale" replacement of random.c is a major thing, why not
> > just submit patches to fix it up to add the needed changes you feel are
> > necessary?  We don't like to have major changes like this, that's not
> > how kernel development is done.
> 
> I have to admit that I tried that over the last years. I sent numerous small 
> cleanup patches (not changing any logic) and larger patches (with logic 
> changes). Even after pinging, I hardly got a response to any of my patches, 
> let alone that patches were accepted.

Changing core kernel code is hard, really hard, for good reason.  I
don't recall seeing a patch series from you that addressed minor things
that you might have complaints about, why not send them again?

> I have stated the core concerns I have with random.c in [1]. To remedy these 
> core concerns, major changes to random.c are needed. With the past experience, 
> I would doubt that I get the changes into random.c.
> 
> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-crypto/msg26316.html

Evolution is the correct way to do this, kernel development relies on
that.  We don't do the "use this totally different and untested file
instead!" method.

thanks,

greg k-h