linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] init: call time_init() before rand

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: <20220507122653.e5ea43e8200568b348b7a16d@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sat, 7 May 2022 12:26:53 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Stafford Horne <shorne@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] init: call time_init() before rand_initialize()

On Thu,  5 May 2022 02:31:14 +0200 "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:

> Currently time_init() is called before rand_initialize(), but

You mean "after"!  Changelog was really confusing until I went and
looked at the code.

> rand_initialize() makes use of the timer on various platforms, and
> sometimes this timer needs to be initialized by time_init() first. In
> order to not return zero, 

return zero from what?

> reverse the order of these two calls. The
> block doing random initialization was right before time_init() before,
> so changing the order shouldn't have any complicated effects.

I hope you're right.  Moving these things around tends to fix one thing
and break another.

> Andrew - this file has no formal maintainer, but you've signed the most
> commits, so I'm CC'ing you. This has some interactions with my
> random.git tree, so unless there are objections, I'll queue it up there.

No probs.  Plenty of testing in linux-next, please.