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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 7 Aug 2020 20:04:12 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Marc Plumb <lkml.mplumb@...il.com>, tytso@....edu,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, aksecurity@...il.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
        Jason@...c4.com, luto@...nel.org, keescook@...omium.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Flaw in "random32: update the net random state on interrupt and
 activity"

Hi Andy,

On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 10:55:11AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> This is still another non-cryptographic PRNG.
> > 
> > Absolutely. During some discussions regarding the possibility of using
> > CSPRNGs, orders around hundreds of CPU cycles were mentioned for them,
> > which can definitely be a huge waste of precious resources for some
> > workloads, possibly causing the addition of a few percent extra machines
> > in certain environments just to keep the average load under a certain
> > threshold.
> 
> I think the real random.c can run plenty fast. It's ChaCha20 plus ludicrous
> overhead right now. I'm working (slowly) on making the overhead go away.  I'm
> hoping to have something testable in a few days.  As it stands, there is a
> ton of indirection, a pile of locks, multiple time comparisons, per-node and
> percpu buffers (why both?), wasted bits due to alignment, and probably other
> things that can be cleaned up.  I'm trying to come up with something that is
> fast and has easy-to-understand semantics.
> 
> You can follow along at:
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/log/?h=random/fast

Thanks, we'll see. I developed a quick test tool that's meant to be easy
to use to measure the performance impact on connect/accept. I have not
yet run it on a modified PRNG to verify if it works. I'll send it once
I've tested. I'd definitely would like to see no measurable performance
drop, and ideally even a small performance increase (as Tausworthe isn't
the lightest thing around either so we do have some little margin).

Willy

Powered by blists - more mailing lists