| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4406786.zLnsZ2vfAB@bagend>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 21:03:52 +0200
From: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org>
To: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...nel.org>
Cc: Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, Martin Kaiser <martin@...ser.cx>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...ian.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, Olivia Mackall <olivia@...enic.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>,
Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@...el32.net>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/3] hwrng: add hwrng support for Rockchip RK3568
On Monday, 22 July 2024 19:57:05 CEST Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 12:54 AM Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org>
wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 16 July 2024 17:18:48 CEST Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > > On Jul 16, 2024 at 10:13 PM Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@...ow.org>
wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 16 July 2024 15:59:40 CEST Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > > > > For shits and giggles, I tried it on my PineTab2 too (also rk3566):
> > > > >
> > > > > ===========================================================
> > > > > root@...etab2:~# uname -a
> > > > > Linux pinetab2 6.10+unreleased-arm64 #1 SMP Debian 6.10-1~cknow
> > > > > (2024-04-24) aarch64 GNU/Linux
> > > > >
> > > > > root@...etab2:~# dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=100000 count=1 > /dev/null
> > > > > 1+0 records in
> > > > > 1+0 records out
> > > > > 100000 bytes (100 kB, 98 KiB) copied, 5,69533 s, 17,6 kB/s
> > > > >
> > > > > root@...bian-pinetab2:~# cat /dev/hwrng | rngtest -c 1000
> > > > > rngtest 5
> > > > > ...
> > > > > rngtest: starting FIPS tests...
> > > > > rngtest: bits received from input: 20000032
> > > > > rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 730
> > > > > rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 270
> > > > > ===========================================================
> > > > >
> > > > > That's looking quite a lot better ... and I have no idea why.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Q64-A is used as headless server and the PineTab2 is not,
> > > > > but I connected to both over SSH and they were freshly booted
> > > > > into, thus I haven't actually/normally used the PT2 since boot.
> > > >
> > > > I did freshly install rng-tools5 package before running the test, so
> > > > I rebooted again to make sure that wasn't a factor:
> > > >
> > > > ===========================================================
> > > > root@...etab2:~# cat /dev/hwrng | rngtest -c 1000
> > > > rngtest 5
> > > > ...
> > > > rngtest: starting FIPS tests...
> > > > rngtest: bits received from input: 20000032
> > > > rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 704
> > > > rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 296
> > > > ===========================================================
> > > >
> > > > So that 704/296 vs 730/270 in the previous run on the PT2.
> > > >
> > > On my Rock 3A:
> > >
> > > wens@...k-3a:~$ sudo cat /dev/hwrng | rngtest -c 1000
> > > rngtest 5
> > > ...
> > > rngtest: starting FIPS tests...
> > > rngtest: bits received from input: 20000032
> > > rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 992
> > > rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 8
> > >
> > > wens@...k-3a:~$ uname -a
> > > Linux rock-3a 6.10.0-rc7-next-20240712-12899-g7df602fe7c8b #9 SMP Mon
> > > Jul 15 00:39:32 CST 2024 aarch64 GNU/Linux
> >
> > I wondered if ``dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=100000 count=1 > /dev/null`` before
> > the actual test run made a difference.
> > Tried it on my Quartz64 Model A: no
> >
> > Then I tried it on my Quartz64 Model B:
> >
> > root@...rtz64b:~# cat /dev/hwrng | rngtest -c 1000
> > rngtest 5
> > ...
> > rngtest: starting FIPS tests...
> > rngtest: bits received from input: 20000032
> > rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 120
> > rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 880
> >
> > root@...rtz64b:~# dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=100000 count=1 > /dev/null
> > 1+0 records in
> > 1+0 records out
> > 100000 bytes (100 kB, 98 KiB) copied, 5.71466 s, 17.5 kB/s
> >
> > root@...rtz64b:~# cat /dev/hwrng | rngtest -c 1000
> > rngtest 5
> > ...
> > rngtest: starting FIPS tests...
> > rngtest: bits received from input: 20000032
> > rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 104
> > rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 896
> >
> > root@...rtz64b:~# uname -a
> > Linux quartz64b 6.10+unreleased-arm64 #1 SMP Debian 6.10-1~cknow
> > (2024-04-24) aarch64 GNU/Linux>
> > :-O
>
> I pulled out my Quartz64 model B, and the results seem better than yours.
>
> root@...rtz64:~# sudo dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=256 | rngtest -c 1000
> rngtest 5
> ...
> rngtest: starting FIPS tests...
> rngtest: bits received from input: 20000032
> rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 859
> rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 141
> root@...rtz64:~# sudo dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=256 | rngtest -c 1000
> rngtest 5
> ...
> rngtest: starting FIPS tests...
> rngtest: bits received from input: 20000032
> rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 843
> rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 157
I noticed you used ``dd`` instead of ``cat``, so I tried again ...
Quartz64-A:
root@...rtz64a:~# dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=256 | rngtest -c 1000
rngtest 5
...
rngtest: starting FIPS tests...
rngtest: bits received from input: 20000032
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 411
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 589
root@...rtz64a:~# dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=256 | rngtest -c 1000
...
rngtest: starting FIPS tests...
rngtest: bits received from input: 20000032
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 391
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 609
root@...rtz64a:~# dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=100000 count=1 > /dev/null
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
100000 bytes (100 kB, 98 KiB) copied, 5.66202 s, 17.7 kB/s
root@...rtz64a:~# dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=256 | rngtest -c 1000
...
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 386
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 614
root@...rtz64a:~# dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=256 | rngtest -c 1000
...
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 356
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 644
Quartz64-B:
root@...rtz64b:~# dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=256 | rngtest -c 1000
...
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 118
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 882
root@...rtz64b:~# dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=256 | rngtest -c 1000
...
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 133
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 867
root@...rtz64b:~# dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=100000 count=1 > /dev/null
root@...rtz64b:~# dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=256 | rngtest -c 1000
...
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 97
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 903
root@...rtz64b:~# dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=256 | rngtest -c 1000
...
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 130
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 870
And lastly on PineTab2:
root@...etab2:~# dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=256 | rngtest -c 1000
...
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 705
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 295
root@...etab2:~# dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=256 | rngtest -c 1000
...
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 678
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 322
root@...etab2:~# dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=100000 count=1 > /dev/null
root@...etab2:~# dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=256 | rngtest -c 1000
...
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 681
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 319
root@...etab2:~# dd if=/dev/hwrng bs=256 | rngtest -c 1000
...
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 successes: 669
rngtest: FIPS 140-2 failures: 331
So my Q64-B tests are consistently MUCH worse then your Q64-B tests ...
This seems BAD to me, now that we even have completely different results per
device of the EXACT same model?!? Hardware revision may be different (I have a
v1.4), but it seems rather pointless to go into that direction.
It then also seems rather pointless to try it with different parameters if the
results on the same SBC model can vary this much.
Thanks for your tests,
Diederik
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists