[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aQ57ofElS-N0gEco@zx2c4.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2025 00:07:13 +0100
From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@...el.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Christopher Snowhill <chris@...e54.net>,
Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, peterz@...radead.org,
mario.limonciello@....com, riel@...riel.com, yazen.ghannam@....com,
me@...aill.net, kai.huang@...el.com, sandipan.das@....com,
darwi@...utronix.de, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/amd: Disable RDSEED on AMD Zen5 because of an
error.
Hi Thiago,
On Fri, Nov 07, 2025 at 11:55:35AM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> I'm not asking about the performance of generating new random numbers in this
> process.
>
> I am asking about the system-wide impact that draining the entropy source
> would have. Is that a bad thing?
>
> I suspect the answer is "no" because it's the same as /dev/urandom anyway.
Oh. "Entropy source draining" is not a real thing. There used to be
bizarre behavior related to /dev/random (not urandom), but this has been
gone for ages. And even the non-getrandom Linux fallback code uses
/dev/urandom before /dev/random. So not even on old kernels is this an
issue. You can keep generating random numbers forever without worrying
about running out of juice or irritating other processes.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists