[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAi9uDt063WYqNSX9dSCtRybd2a2Ad-0q2s8xvOst6qq3O4wPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 22:43:12 -0400
From: "David R. Bild" <david.bild@...tum.com>
To: Louis Collard <louiscollard@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tpm: Add module parameter for hwrng quality.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:54 AM, Louis Collard <louiscollard@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 9:03 PM, David R. Bild <david.bild@...tum.com> wrote:
>> As a point of clarification (and correct me if I'm wrong), the TPM is
>> always ready used to seed the rng. It just doesn't update the entropy
>> pool estimate.
>
> Good point.
>
>>
>> So, perhaps the default value for the TPM hwrng quality should be
>> non-zero (in addition to the module param that lets users override
>> it)?
>
> That makes sense to me, however I can imagine that some users would
> prefer to not have the TPM enabled as an ongoing source of entropy by
> default.
Fair enough.
> Following on from your previous point - perhaps we can just make a
> small change to how the initial seeding is done: maybe we can replace
> the call to crng_slow_load (via add_early_randomness and
> add_device_randomness) with a call (indirectly) to crng_fast_load. (We
> might also need to increase the amount of data read at this point.)
>
> This would update crng_init_cnt and crng_init, and calls to getrandom
> [without GRND_RANDOM] would not block.
Interesting.
add_hwgenereator_randomness() will call crng_fast_load(), regardless
of entropy estimate/quality, if crng_init is 0. So initializing
crng_init from the hwrng, regardless of quality, is already the
intent.
But hw_random only calls add_hwgenerator_randomness() if
current_quality > 0, via the hwrng_fillfn() kthread.
All that to say, I agree. add_early_randomness() should (indirectly)
call crng_fast_load(), like add_hwgenerator_randomness() does.
> This obviously doesn't solve the issue if there are blocking calls on
> boot that are querying random rather than urandom; I don't believe
> that would be a problem for our use case though.
>
It wouldn't be a problem for our use case either.
Best,
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists