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: <20170719063447.GA13740@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Jul 2017 08:34:47 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Stephan Müller <smueller@...onox.de>
Cc:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        "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 Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 08:22:18AM +0200, Stephan Müller wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2017, 23:08:16 CEST schrieb Theodore Ts'o:
> 
> Hi Theodore,
> > 
> > I've been trying to take the best features and suggestions from your
> > proposal and integrating them into /dev/random already.  Things that
> > I've chosen not take is basically because I disbelieve that the Jitter
> > RNG is valid.  And that's mostly becuase I trust Peter Anvin (who has
> > access to Intel chip architects, who has expressed unease) more than
> > you.  (No hard feelings).
> 
> I am unsure why you always point to the Jitter RNG. This is one noise source 
> to keep or to remove -- at least it provides more data during early boot than 
> any other noise source we currently have.
> 
> In the email [1] I have expressed the core concerns I see -- none of them 
> address the need to keep the Jitter RNG as one noise source. To address those, 
> a very deep dive into random.c needs to be made.
> 
> Such deep dive has the potential to be disruptive. Therefore, doesn't it make 
> more sense to have such conceptual changes rather covered in a separate 
> implementation?

No, it makes more sense to send individual patches addressing your
concerns to the existing random driver.  Again, that's how
kernel development has always worked.

thanks,

greg k-h