[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201002133358.GA3386034@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 15:33:58 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@...il.com>,
"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@...il.com>,
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>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
Peter Matthias <matthias.peter@....bund.de>,
Marcelo Henrique Cerri <marcelo.cerri@...onical.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Andy Lavr <andy.lavr@...il.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
Stephan Müller <smueller@...onox.de>,
Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION PATCH 00/41] random: possible ways towards NIST
SP800-90B compliance
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 03:15:55PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 02:38:36PM +0200, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> > Almost two weeks passed and these are the "relevant" replies:
> >
> > Jason personally does not like FIPS, and is afraid of
> > "subpar crypto". Albeit this patch set strictly isn't about
> > crypto at all; the crypto subsystem is in the unlucky position
> > to just depend on a good entropy source.
> >
> > Greg claims that Linux (kernel) isn't about choice, which is clearly
> > wrong.
>
> I think there's a small misunderstanding here, my understanding is
> that for quite a while, the possibilities offered by the various
> random subsystems or their proposed derivative used to range from
> "you have to choose between a fast system that may be vulnerable
> to some attacks, a system that might not be vulnerable to certain
> attacks but might not always boot, or a slow system not vulnerable
> to certain attacks". Greg's point seems to be that if we add an
> option, it means it's yet another tradeoff between these possibilities
> and that someone will still not be happy at the end of the chain. If
> the proposed solution covers everything at once (performance,
> reliability, unpredictability), then there probably is no more reason
> for keeping alternate solutions at all, hence there's no need to give
> the user the choice between multiple options when only one is known
> to always be valid. At least that's how I see it and it makes sense
> to me.
Thanks for spelling it out in much more detail than I was willing to :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists