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-=wjCmw1L42W-o=pW7_i=nJK5r0_HFQTWD_agKWGt4hE7JQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:19:17 -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 11:57, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
>
> I really do not want to expose random.c internals, and then deal with
> the consequences of breaking user code that relied on that. The fake
> entropy count API was already a nightmare to move away from. And I
> think there's tremendous value in letting users use the kernel's
> *exact algorithm*, whatever it happens to be, without syscall
> overhead. Plus, this means further proliferation of bad userspace
> RNGs. So I think the deal is a bad one.

Bah. I guess I'll have to walk through the patch series once again.

I'm still not thrilled about it. But I'll give it another go.

                 Linus