[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0A608F00-CDC0-494E-AC57-69BA0E3F547F@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2022 09:42:49 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] random: remove CONFIG_ARCH_RANDOM and "nordrand"
On July 6, 2022 5:23:31 AM PDT, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 04:11:45PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> What I'm wondering is if we shouldn't be simply instrument *every*
>> invocation, and set the trust to zero if we ever trip it.
>
>I guess you can add some logic to rdrand_long() to sanity-check what it
>returns...
>
>But would that be worth the effort?
>
I think doing it centrally, as non-arch-specific code, and letting it subsume ad hoc checks for known failure conditions could be a win.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists