linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] random: group initialization wait functions

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: <YgirDzvwEYRwvLHS@owl.dominikbrodowski.net>
Date:   Sun, 13 Feb 2022 07:54:07 +0100
From:   Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] random: group initialization wait functions

> +/*
> + * Returns whether or not the urandom pool has been seeded and thus guaranteed
> + * to supply cryptographically secure random numbers. This applies to: the
> + * /dev/urandom device, the get_random_bytes function, and the get_random_{u32,
> + * ,u64,int,long} family of functions.
> + *
> + * Returns: true if the urandom pool has been seeded.
> + *          false if the urandom pool has not been seeded.

I think this comment should be updated, as there is no "urandom pool";
instead we should refer to the  "random pool" or the "random base pool".

> +/*
> + * Wait for the urandom pool to be seeded and thus guaranteed to supply
> + * cryptographically secure random numbers. This applies to: the /dev/urandom
> + * device, the get_random_bytes function, and the get_random_{u32,u64,int,long}
> + * family of functions. Using any of these functions without first calling
> + * this function forfeits the guarantee of security.
> + *
> + * Returns: 0 if the urandom pool has been seeded.
> + *          -ERESTARTSYS if the function was interrupted by a signal.

Same here.

> +/*
> + * Add a callback function that will be invoked when the nonblocking
> + * pool is initialised.

Same here ("nonblocking pool").

Other than that, looks fine.

Thanks,
	Dominik