linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.9 168/264] random: re-add removed comment about get_random

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: <20220623164348.818089732@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:42:41 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 168/264] random: re-add removed comment about get_random_{u32,u64} reseeding

From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>

commit dd7aa36e535797926d8eb311da7151919130139d upstream.

The comment about get_random_{u32,u64}() not invoking reseeding got
added in an unrelated commit, that then was recently reverted by
0313bc278dac ("Revert "random: block in /dev/urandom""). So this adds
that little comment snippet back, and improves the wording a bit too.

Reviewed-by: Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 drivers/char/random.c |    7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/char/random.c
+++ b/drivers/char/random.c
@@ -227,9 +227,10 @@ static void _warn_unseeded_randomness(co
  *
  * These interfaces will return the requested number of random bytes
  * into the given buffer or as a return value. This is equivalent to
- * a read from /dev/urandom. The integer family of functions may be
- * higher performance for one-off random integers, because they do a
- * bit of buffering.
+ * a read from /dev/urandom. The u32, u64, int, and long family of
+ * functions may be higher performance for one-off random integers,
+ * because they do a bit of buffering and do not invoke reseeding
+ * until the buffer is emptied.
  *
  *********************************************************************/