linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/random: Issue a warning if RDRAND or RDSEED fails

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: <469bd890-36fb-4fbb-8060-36cd1169b654@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 12:37:22 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: "Dr. Greg" <greg@...ellic.com>, "Daniel P. Berrang??"
 <berrange@...hat.com>, "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
 "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
 Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
 "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
 Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, "Kalra, Ashish"
 <ashish.kalra@....com>, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
 "linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/random: Issue a warning if RDRAND or RDSEED fails

On 2/9/24 11:49, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> [As an aside, I would like to note that a different construction of
> RDRAND could keep outputting good random numbers for a reeeeeallly
> long time without needing to reseed, or without penalty if RDSEED is
> depleted, and so could be made to actually never fail. But given the
> design goals of RDRAND, this kind of crypto is highly likely to never
> be implemented, so I'm not even moving to suggest that AMD/Intel just
> 'fix' the crypto design goals of the instruction. It's not gonna
> happen for lots of reasons.]

Intel's RDRAND reseeding behavior is spelled out here:

> https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/guide/intel-digital-random-number-generator-drng-software-implementation-guide.html

In the "Guaranteeing DBRG Reseeding" section.

> It's a bit of a scheduling/queueing thing, where different security
> contexts shouldn't be able to starve others out of the finite resource
> indefinitely.
> 
> What I'm wondering is if that kind of fairness is even possible to
> achieve in the hardware or the microcode.
..

Even ignoring different security contexts, Intel's whitepaper claims
that no starvation happens with RDRAND:

> If multiple threads are invoking RDRAND simultaneously, total RDRAND
> throughput (across all threads) scales approximately linearly with
> the number of threads until no more hardware threads remain, the bus
> limits of the processor are reached, or the DRNG interface is fully
> saturated. Past this point, the maximum throughput is divided equally
> among the active threads. No threads get starved.

800 MB/sec of total RDRAND throughput across all threads, guaranteed
reseeding, and no starvation sounds pretty good to me.

Does that need improving?