linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v25 10/12] LRNG

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]

Message-ID: <cdf1791d-0e60-cb9f-6030-0258f12bef3c@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:55:46 +0500
From:   "Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@...il.com>
To:     Stephan Müller <smueller@...onox.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        "Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
        Vito Caputo <vcaputo@...garu.com>,
        Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Ray Strode <rstrode@...hat.com>,
        William Jon McCann <mccann@....edu>,
        zhangjs <zachary@...shancloud.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
        Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
        "Peter, Matthias" <matthias.peter@....bund.de>,
        Marcelo Henrique Cerri <marcelo.cerri@...onical.com>,
        Roman Drahtmueller <draht@...altsekun.de>,
        Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v25 10/12] LRNG - add TRNG support

20.11.2019 13:58, Stephan Müller пишет:

> Or another idea and apologies if I restart this conversation as there was
> already a discussion around it: what about extending the getrandom(2) call
> instead of adding a device file?
> 
> What about adding yet another flag to getrandom: GRND_TRUERANDOM and process
> it as follows:
> 
>          if (flags & ~(GRND_NONBLOCK|GRND_RANDOM|GRND_INSECURE|
> GRND_TRUERANDOM))
>                  return -EINVAL;
> 
>          //From Andy's tree
>          /*
>           * Requesting insecure and blocking randomness at the same time makes
>           * no sense.
>           */
>          if ((flags & (GRND_INSECURE|GRND_RANDOM)) == (GRND_INSECURE|
> GRND_RANDOM))
>                  return -EINVAL;
> 
> 	  /* We only allow GRND_TRUERANDOM by itself or with NONBLOCK */
> 	  if (! ((flags & GRND_TRUERANDOM) &&
>                 ((flags == GRND_TRUERANDOM) ||
>                  (flags == GRND_TRUERANDOM | GRND_NONBLOCK))))
> 		return -EINVAL;
> 
> 	if (flags & GRND_TRUERANDOM) {
> 		... do the TRNG processing ...
> 		... may return -ENOPNOTSUPP if no TRNG available ...
> 	}

This would totally miss the point of adding a device node: UNIX 
permissions that don't allow "others" to read and deplete "true" random 
numbers.

-- 
Alexander E. Patrakov