linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] random: Omit double-printing ratelimit messages

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: <1525977460.28243.2.camel@arista.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 May 2018 19:37:40 +0100
From:   Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 0x7f454c46@...il.com,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] random: Omit double-printing ratelimit messages

On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 14:19 -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 01:52:10PM +0100, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> > Currently "suppressed" messages will be printed once in a second
> > for
> > unseeded/urandom warnings, but there is already custom message
> > which
> > says how many warnings are missing. So, let's skip suppressed
> > messages
> > until crng_init == 2.
> 
> I'm not sure what you are trying to fix?  The whole point of the
> ratelimit system is to nly allow no more than <burst> packages in a
> particular time interval.  Once that time interval has expired,
> messages allowed again until they exceed the burst limit.  So
> printing
> messages once a second is, in fact, working as intended.


Ok, then what's the purpose of those messages?
:        pr_notice("random: %d get_random_xx warning(s) missed "
:                  "due to ratelimiting\n",
:                  unseeded_warning.missed);
:        pr_notice("random: %d urandom warning(s) missed "
:                  "due to ratelimiting\n",
:                  urandom_warning.missed);

I thought you want to print the summary after initializing random,
not once per second?

-- 
Thanks,
             Dmitry