[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201016172619.GA18410@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 19:26:19 +0200
From: Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>
To: Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, "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>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"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>,
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 03:56:28PM +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote:
> Am Freitag, 2. Oktober 2020, 15:15:55 CEST schrieb Willy Tarreau:
>
> Hi Willy,
>
> > > And this is all ???
> >
> > Possibly a lot of people got used to seeing the numerous versions
> > and are less attentive to new series, it's possible that your message
> > will wake everyone up.
>
> I think that points to my patch series. My patch series which provide a
> complete separate, API and ABI compliant drop in replacement of /dev/random,
> nobody from the gatekeepers cared to even answer. It would not touch the
> existing code.
>
> After waiting some time without changing the code (e.g. after Andi Lutomirski
> commented), I got no answer at all from the gatekeepers, not even any
> indication in what direction I should move if something was not desired in the
> patch series.
>
> Thus I continued adding the features that I think are necessary and for which
> I received comments from mathematicians. What else should I do?
>
> With the patch set v35 of my patch series, I see all my goals finally
> achieved at I expect the code to be stable from here on. The last one was the
> hardest: to get rid of all non-cryptographic conditioning operations and yet
> retain performance en par or even superior to the existing /dev/random
> implementation.
Would you mind to resend it here, for a comparison?
Torsten
Powered by blists - more mailing lists