linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v0] random: block in /dev/urandom

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]

Message-ID: <a7c12f2-c12-f0ea-ad44-10fb607d86@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Sat, 12 Feb 2022 09:01:19 +1100 (AEDT)
From:   Finn Thain <fthain@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@...inter.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v0] random: block in /dev/urandom

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:

> + * Reading from /dev/random and /dev/urandom both the same effect as
> + * calling getrandom(2) with flags=0. In earlier versions, however,
> + * they each had vastly different semantics and should therefore be
> + * avoided to prevent backwards compatibility issues.

If the end result "should be avoided", then why bother? IOW, how does this 
improve the ABI? I know you said it's a "panacea" but I'm afraid that's 
not clear to me and the patch description doesn't explain it.