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]
Date:   Mon, 15 Apr 2019 22:46:34 -0500
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] random: Move rand_initialize() earlier

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 9:45 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 03:54:21PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> Right now rand_initialize() is run as an early_initcall(), but it only
> >> depends on timekeeping_init() (for mixing ktime_get_real() into the
> >> pools). However, the call to boot_init_stack_canary() for stack canary
> >> initialization runs earlier, which triggers a warning at boot:
> >>
> >> random: get_random_bytes called from start_kernel+0x357/0x548 with crng_init=0
> >>
> >> Instead, this moves rand_initialize() to after timekeeping_init(), and moves
> >> canary initialization here as well.
> >>
> >> Note that this warning may still remain for machines that do not have
> >> UEFI RNG support (which initializes the RNG pools durting setup_arch()),
> >> or for x86 machines without RDRAND (or booting without "random.trust=on"
> >> or CONFIG_RANDOM_TRUST_CPU=y).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> >
> > This seems reasonable to me.  Were you hoping to get this in for -rc8?
> > It looks sane, and I don't see any _obvious_ unintended consequences
> > of such a change, but it's rather late in the development cycle, and
> > it isn't regression fix.
>
> Yeah, for sure. I didn't mean this for 4.19. I assumed -next, and
> likely further changes based on discussion, etc etc.

Hi Ted! Did this get lost? This has come up again, and I don't see it
having landed anywhere yet. Can you take this?

-- 
Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists