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>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 11 Aug 2020 07:37:38 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     George Spelvin <lkml@....org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Amit Klein <aksecurity@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Marc Plumb <lkml.mplumb@...il.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [DRAFT PATCH] random32: make prandom_u32() output unpredictable

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 05:26:49AM +0000, George Spelvin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:04:55PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > What could be improved is the way the input values are mixed (just
> > added hence commutative for now). I didn't want to call a siphash
> > round on the hot paths, but just shifting the previous noise value
> > before adding would work, such as the following for example:
> > 
> >   void prandom_u32_add_noise(a, b, c, d)
> >   {
> >   	unsigned long *noise = get_cpu_ptr(&net_rand_noise);
> > 
> >   #if BITS_PER_LONG == 64
> > 	*noise = rol64(*noise, 7) + a + b + c + d;
> >   #else
> > 	*noise = rol32(*noise, 7) + a + b + c + d;
> >   #endif
> >   	put_cpu_ptr(&net_rand_noise);
> > 
> >   }
> 
> If you think this is enough seed material, I'm fine with it.
> 
> I don't hugely like the fact that you sum all the inputs, since
> entropy tends to be concentrated in the low-order words, and summing
> risks cancellation.

Yes I've figured this. But I thought it was still better than
a pure xor which would cancell the high bits from pointers.

> You can't afford even one SIPROUND as a non-cryptographic hash?  E.g.

That's what I mentioned above, I'm still hesitating. I need to test.

> 
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long[4], net_rand_noise);
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(net_rand_noise);
> 
> void prandom_u32_add_noise(a, b, c, d)
> {
> 	unsigned long *noise = get_cpu_ptr(&net_rand_noise);
> 
> 	a ^= noise[0];
> 	b ^= noise[1];
> 	c ^= noise[2];
> 	d ^= noise[3];
> 	/*
> 	 * This is not used cryptographically; it's just
> 	 * a convenient 4-word hash function.
> 	 */
> 	SIPROUND(a, b, c, d);
> 	noise[0] = a;
> 	noise[1] = b;
> 	noise[2] = c;
> 	put_cpu_ptr(&net_rand_noise);
> }
> 
> (And then you mix in net_rand_noise[0].)
> 
> Other options are HASH_MIX() from fs/namei.c, but that's
> more sequential.
> 
> There's also a simple Xorshift generator.

I think a xorshift on each value will have roughly the same cost
as a single SIPROUND. But I've not yet completely eliminated these
options until I've tested. If we lose a few cycles per packet, that
might be OK.

Willy

Powered by blists - more mailing lists