[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVQtQO87U3SEgQyHfkNKsrcS8PjeZrsy2MPAU7gQY70XA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 17:06:22 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@...hat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, David Hildenbrand <dhildenb@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 4/5] random: introduce generic vDSO getrandom() implementation
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 12:08 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
>
> Provide a generic C vDSO getrandom() implementation, which operates on
> an opaque state returned by vgetrandom_alloc() and produces random bytes
> the same way as getrandom(). This has a the API signature:
>
> ssize_t vgetrandom(void *buffer, size_t len, unsigned int flags, void *opaque_state);
Last time around, I mentioned some potential issues with this function
signature, and I didn't see any answer. My specific objection was to
the fact that the caller passes in a pointer but not a length, and
this potentially makes reasoning about memory safety awkward,
especially if anything like CRIU is involved.
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists