linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] random: do not use jump labels before they are initialized

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: <CAMj1kXF7NToZgAW66puCOwc1+d7ZTmVm_CbDYEeH+j0XJH1vug@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:03:28 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Phil Elwell <phil@...pberrypi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] random: do not use jump labels before they are initialized

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 at 13:35, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ard,
>
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 01:10:52PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > Fair enough. What I would like is to remove the need to play around
> > with the placement of jump_label_init() across architectures. Jump
> > labels are fundamentally a performance optimization, so unless you can
> > explain how setting it as early as possible makes a material
> > difference, performance or otherwise, I really think we should pursue
> > a solution that does the static key manipulation at some later time.
>
> Alright. It sounds like Catalin also prefers the same. This seems simple
> enough with minimal downsides: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220607113238.769088-1-Jason@zx2c4.com/
>

That looks simple enough. Do we risk causing any boot stalls due to
the crediting being deferred? Or new warnings about randomness being
used before CRNG is ready?

> So maybe we should just go that route.
>

It is not my preferred approach, but I can live with it.