linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] random: add 8-bit and 16-bit batches

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]

Date:   Fri, 25 Nov 2022 12:10:58 +0800
From:   Sandy Harris <sandyinchina@...il.com>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] random: add 8-bit and 16-bit batches

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 1:33 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
>
> There are numerous places in the kernel that would be sped up by having
> smaller batches. ...

>  void get_random_bytes(void *buf, size_t len);
> +u8 get_random_u8(void);
> +u16 get_random_u16(void);
>  u32 get_random_u32(void);
>  u64 get_random_u64(void);
>  static inline unsigned int get_random_int(void)

To me, the 32-bit & 64-bit functions look like an
obviously good idea. However, I cannot see
that the 8-bit or 16-bit functions are needed.

Even library functions like getchar() return an
int & whatever you return, it is going to be
handled as an int-sized item if it goes in a
register, so what's the point?