linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] random: use correct memory barriers for crng_node

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:   Mon, 20 Dec 2021 10:31:40 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] random: use correct memory barriers for
 crng_node_pool

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 07:16:48PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 7:11 PM Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org> wrote:
> > First I would want
> 
> It looks like you've answered my question with four other questions,
> which seem certainly technically warranted, but also indicates we're
> probably not going to get to the nice easy resting place of, "it is
> safe; go for it" that I was hoping for. In light of that, it seems
> like merging Eric's patch is reasonable.

My hope would be that the questions can be quickly answered by the
developers and maintainers.  But yes, hope springs eternal.

							Thanx, Paul