linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] prandom32 changes for v5.10

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]

Date:   Wed, 21 Oct 2020 13:52:51 -0700
From:   Marc Plumb <lkml.mplumb@...il.com>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Amit Klein <aksecurity@...il.com>, George Spelvin <lkml@....org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] prandom32 changes for v5.10

As one of the participants, I mostly backed off when Spelvin seemed to 
be more aggressively driving a secure solution. I still think that this 
is an important change, both to fix the original network vulnerability 
and to avoid harming dev/random while doing it. I greatly appreciate 
your time and effort on this but didn't want too much chatter on the DL.


On 2020-10-20 8:27 p.m., Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 04:08:03PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 12:26 PM Amit Klein <aksecurity@...il.com> wrote:
>>> Quick question: is this patch still planned for inclusion in 5.10-rc1?
>> It doesn't even build for me, so no. It clearly hasn't been in
>> linux-next or anything like that.
>>
>> Hint: grep for prandom_seed_early.
> I'm a bit surprised, as it worked for me, but thanks for checking. Given
> the lack of responses from many participants on these patches, on several
> occations I feel that this series is really not welcome. Initially I just
> tried to test and fix Spelvin's patch, but if there's not that much
> interest in it, or even reluctance, I'd rather stop. If it's just that
> the current state is ugly with the two PRNGs side by side, I can get
> back to completely removing the original one as I did in my first series,
> and propose a larger series. Or if nobody's interested, I'd rather know
> so that I don't have to put more time on it :-/
>
> Thanks for letting me know,
> Willy