[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87blvefai7.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2019 08:07:12 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>,
Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@...il.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 1/1] random: WARN on large getrandom() waits and introduce getrandom2()
* Linus Torvalds:
> Violently agreed. And that's kind of what the GRND_EXPLICIT is really
> aiming for.
>
> However, it's worth noting that nobody should ever use GRND_EXPLICIT
> directly. That's just the name for the bit. The actual users would use
> GRND_INSECURE or GRND_SECURE.
Should we switch glibc's getentropy to GRND_EXPLICIT? Or something
else?
I don't think we want to print a kernel warning for this function.
Thanks,
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists