[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190204155535.GC9802@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 10:55:35 -0500
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@...b.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86, random: Fix get_random_bytes() warning in x86
start_kernel
On Sun, Feb 03, 2019 at 08:09:37AM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> Ted, the bug I'm trying to fix is the warning:
>
> random: get_random_bytes called from start_kernel+0x8e/0x587 with crng_init=0
>
> during early boot. Even with the kernel parameter the warning appears.
Sometimes the warnings are real, and shouldn't be suppressed. A
Debian maintainer once tried to suppress a compile-time warning, and
it was disastrous for security. :-)
What line number is that corresponding to? It sounds like something
is trying to use get_random_bytes() before the random driver was
initialized, and so the first question is does it really need to call
get_random_bytes() then or can it be moved?
> > Also, relying on the TSC for entropy is not something we should be
> > recommending.
>
> The current code uses the TSC. It is not something new I'm introducing.
But we don't *rely* on it. That's a big difference.
- Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists