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: <1780567.qGdv4EjEMp@positron.chronox.de>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:37:11 +0200
From:   Stephan Müller <smueller@...onox.de>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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

Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2017, 10:52:12 CEST schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:

Hi Greg,

> 
> > 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.

I am not sure I understand your reply. The offered patch set does not rip out 
existing code. It adds a replacement implementation which can be enabled 
during compile time. Yet it is even disabled per default (and thus the legacy 
code is compiled).

I see such a development approach in numerous different kernel core areas: 
memory allocators (SLAB, SLOB, SLUB), process schedulers, IRQ schedulers.

What is so different for the realm of RNGs?

Ciao
Stephan