linux-kernel - Re: deconflicting new syscall numbers for 6.11

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: <CAHk-=wh47WSNQYuSWqdu_8XeRzfpWbozzTDL6KtkGbSmLrWU4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 11:52:13 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: jolsa@...nel.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, cgzones@...glemail.com, 
	brauner@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: deconflicting new syscall numbers for 6.11

On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 at 11:46, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
>
>
> I addressed this in the cover letter:
>
> | How do we rectify this? By putting a safe implementation of getrandom()
> | in the vDSO, which has access to whatever information a
> | particular iteration of random.c is using to make its decisions. I use
> | that careful language of "particular iteration of random.c", because the
> | set of things that a vDSO getrandom() implementation might need for making
> | decisions as good as the kernel's will likely change over time.

Jason. This smells. It's BS.

Christ, let's make a deal: do a five-liner patch that adds the
generation number to the vdso data, and basically document it as a
"the kernel thinks you need to reseed your buffers using getrandom"
flag.

And *if* it turns out in the future that there is then any major
reason why that doesn't work, I'll take the 1000+ line thing, ok?

Deal?

                    Linus