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-=wjwU6o4QExra5qNzBxtX5NwTfaX8ytZKk8BFtOng6zqSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 12:46:37 -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 Fri, 5 Jul 2024 at 12:21, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid. Make a sane decision. Stick with it.

Side note: you could just stick the size as a constant in the vdso too.

But honestly, what's the argument for more than 256 if 144 bytes is
the reality now?

Does anybody seriously think our current getrandom() isn't good enough?

              Linus