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  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:   Thu, 24 Dec 2020 20:19:53 +0100
From:   Pavel Machek <>
To:     Petr Tesarik <>
Cc:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <>, Torsten Duwe <>,
        Marcelo Henrique Cerri <>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Stephan Müller <>,
        Willy Tarreau <>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <>,
        Nicolai Stange <>,
        LKML <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <>,
        "Alexander E. Patrakov" <>,
        "Ahmed S. Darwish" <>,
        Matthew Garrett <>,
        Vito Caputo <>,
        Andreas Dilger <>,
        Jan Kara <>, Ray Strode <>,
        William Jon McCann <>,
        zhangjs <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Florian Weimer <>,
        Lennart Poettering <>,
        Peter Matthias <>,
        Neil Horman <>,
        Randy Dunlap <>,
        Julia Lawall <>,
        Dan Carpenter <>,
        And y Lavr <>,
        Eric Biggers <>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <>,
Subject: Re: drivers/char/random.c needs a (new) maintainer


> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 3:17 PM Petr Tesarik <> wrote:
> > > Upfront, let me admit that SUSE has a vested interest in a FIPS-certifiable Linux kernel.  
> > 
> > Sorry, but just because you have a "vested interest", or a financial
> > interest, or because you want it does not suddenly make it a good
> > idea. The idea is to have good crypto, not to merely check some boxes
> I never suggested that this should serve as a supportive argument. I was just trying to be honest about our motivations.
> I'm a bit sad that this discussion has quickly gone back to the choice of algorithms and how they can be implemented. The real issue is that the RNG subsystem has not developed as fast as it could. This had not been much of an issue as long as nobody was really interested in making any substantial changes to that code, but it is more apparent now. Torsten believes it can be partly because of a maintainer who is too busy with other tasks, and he suggested we try to improve the situation by giving the RNG-related tasks to someone else.

(Please wrap at 80 columns).

To play devil's advocate, does RNG subsystem need to evolve? Its task
is to get random numbers. Does it fail at the task?

Problem is, random subsystem is hard to verify, and big rewrite is
likely to cause security problems... 

Best regards,

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists