[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ADFD1BDA-E512-42B8-8D03-E5894ACD7951@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 17:03:42 -0700
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Vito Caputo <vcaputo@...garu.com>,
"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>,
Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Ray Strode <rstrode@...hat.com>,
William Jon McCann <mccann@....edu>,
"Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@...il.com>,
zhangjs <zachary@...shancloud.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 5.3-rc8
On 16 September 2019 16:18:00 GMT-07:00, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 4:11 PM Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
>wrote:
>>
>> In one case we have "Systems don't boot, but you can downgrade your
>> kernel" and in the other case we have "Your cryptographic keys are
>weak
>> and you have no way of knowing unless you read dmesg", and I think
>> causing boot problems is the better outcome here.
>
>Or: In one case you have a real and present problem. In the other
>case, people are talking hypotheticals.
We've been recommending that people use getrandom() for key generation since it was first added to the kernel. Github suggests there are users in the wild - there's almost certainly more cases where internal code depends on the existing semantics.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
Powered by blists - more mailing lists