linux-kernel - Re: [v4.9 PATCH v2 6/6] random: move 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: <Yupk5K1S7flR7yjD@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Aug 2022 14:07:00 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <hegtvedt@...co.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [v4.9 PATCH v2 6/6] random: move rand_initialize() earlier

On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 06:43:28PM +0200, Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt wrote:
> From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> 
> Right now rand_initialize() is run as an early_initcall(), but it only
> depends on timekeeping_init() (for mixing ktime_get_real() into the
> pools). However, the call to boot_init_stack_canary() for stack canary
> initialization runs earlier, which triggers a warning at boot:
> 
> random: get_random_bytes called from start_kernel+0x357/0x548 with crng_init=0
> 
> Instead, this moves rand_initialize() to after timekeeping_init(), and moves
> canary initialization here as well.
> 
> Note that this warning may still remain for machines that do not have
> UEFI RNG support (which initializes the RNG pools during setup_arch()),
> or for x86 machines without RDRAND (or booting without "random.trust=on"
> or CONFIG_RANDOM_TRUST_CPU=y).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
> (cherry picked from commit d55535232c3dbde9a523a9d10d68670f5fe5dec3)
> Signed-off-by: Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <hegtvedt@...co.com>
> 
> Adjusted to fit on top of linux-4.9.y branch, suspecting a wrongly
> solved conflict when cherry picked earlier.
> ---
>  init/main.c | 7 -------
>  1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)

This is not commit d55535232c3dbde9a523a9d10d68670f5fe5dec3, as that is
already in the 4.9.y tree.  I can see that you want to fix the previous
merge up, so can you just send a real fix for that and don't try to say
you really are a different commit?

Other patches in this series now queued up.

thanks,

greg k-h