netdev - Re: [PATCH] drivers/net: remove network drivers' last few uses of IRQF_SAMPLE

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]

Date:	Thu, 15 May 2008 18:04:04 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
CC:	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Chris Peterson <cpeterso@...terso.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mpm@...enic.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/net: remove network drivers' last few uses of
 IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 09:07:52AM -0700, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
>> Alan Cox wrote:
>>> Chris Peterson <cpeterso@...terso.com> wrote:
>>>> I know Jeff Garzik says he's not interested in an anti-entropy
>>>> pogrom for existing net drivers, but here is the patch if anyone
>>>> else is interested..? :)  
>>>>
>>>> Only 12 net drivers are affected, the last of the
>>>> theoretically-exploitable network entropy. 
>>> Looks fine to me. If Jeff doesn't want to touch them then send them
>>> direct to Andrew/Linus.
>>>
>>> A more interesting alternative might be to mark things like network
>>> drivers with a new flag say IRQF_SAMPLE_DUBIOUS so that users can be
>>> given a switch to enable/disable their use depending upon the
>>> environment. 
>> we've been hearing rumblings of big customers wanting (maybe requiring)
>> wired network drivers from Intel to  advertise this flag.  Jeff have you
>> heard of such?
>>
>> I think the argument is that a headless system (no keyboard/mouse, no
>> soundcard, probably no video) with a libata based driver and a network
>> driver without IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM has *no* sources of entropy.  In this
>> case the argument is very strong for at least *some* source of entropy
>> from interrupts so that randomness can get some external input.  Just
>> try rebuilding a kernel RPM over an ssh session and you'll see what I
>> mean.
>>
>> In short, I agree with Alan's IRQF_SAMPLE_DUBIOUS, and know of Linux
>> customers who also want the same.
> 
> We have two random number interfaces:
> - /dev/random
> - /dev/urandom
> 
> If a customer wants to get data from /dev/random although there's not 
> enough entropy that's not a problem we can solve (we can only try to 
> gather more real entropy if possible).
> 
> If he can live with dubious data he can simply use /dev/urandom .
> 
> If a customer wants to use /dev/random and demands to get dubious data 
> there if nothing better is available fulfilling his wish only moves 
> the security bug from his crappy application to the Linux kernel.
> 
> But what we could perhaps do with some kind of IRQF_SAMPLE_DUBIOUS would 
> be to improve the quality of the data in /dev/urandom if there's not 
> enough entropy available?
> 
> I have seen embedded systems with zero entropy, and dubious entropy 
> might there be better than no entropy at all.
> Or am I wrong on the latter?

It's also relevant to the discussion to note that input data to kernel 
devrandom is mixed, and we can control the amount of "credit" applied to 
incoming entropy.

	Jeff




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html