linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v43 01/15] Linux Random Number Generator

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:   Thu, 2 Dec 2021 15:50:02 +0000
From:   John Haxby <john.haxby@...cle.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC:     Jeffrey Walton <noloader@...il.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Simo Sorce <simo@...hat.com>,
        Stephan Mueller <smueller@...onox.de>, Tso Ted <tytso@....edu>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, 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>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        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>,
        Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@...e.cz>,
        Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...lbox.org>,
        Jirka Hladky <jhladky@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v43 01/15] Linux Random Number Generator



> On 2 Dec 2021, at 07:12, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 07:24:43PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 1:25 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 12:19 PM Simo Sorce <simo@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>> that much it is, and it is a required one. However having worked a lot
>>>> on this I can tell you there is actually real cryptographic value in
>>>> the requirements FIPS introduced over the years
>>>> Well I think most of the requirements are sane practices, hopefully
>>>> controversial stuff will be minimal.
>>>> I happen to think quite a few of the requirements are actually good
>>>> ideas to implement to improve the guarantees of randomness
>>> 
>>> If you think there are good ways to improve the RNG, of course send
>>> patches for this, justifying why, taking into account recent research
>>> into the topic you wish to patch, etc. Don't write, "because FIPS";
>>> instead argue rationale for each patch. And if you _do_ feel the need
>>> to appeal to authority, perhaps links to the various eprint papers you
>>> consulted would be worthwhile. Preferably you're able to do this in a
>>> small, incremental way, with small standalone patchsets, instead of
>>> gigantic series.
>> 
>> I may be parsing things incorrectly, but you seem to be rejecting the
>> NIST requirements, and then positioning your personal opinion as
>> superior. It sounds like one authority is being replaced by another.
>> Perhaps I am missing something.
>> 
>> I am also guessing you've never read the relevant NIST documents. The
>> documents state the security goals and provide the steps to achieve
>> them in an implementation.
> 
> Ok, I think this thread has gone on long enough without any real
> patches.
> 
> Please, if you want to support NIST, or any other type of thing, submit
> patches that implement what you think will help achieve this.  Absent of
> that, we have no idea what NIST or any other random document aims to
> require or wish.


Part of the problem here is that NIST (and the concomitant fips certification) is a moving target.   A couple of years ago, we were fine. Today's requirements are different, tomorrow's will be different again.  Today's requirements being different are what resulted in the small patch I mentioned earlier.

You suggested, Greg, that I submit that and see what happens.   I can take a hint :) so I'm working on that as a possible way forward to decouple things a bit without too much churn.

jch



> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)