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:   Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:58:38 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, George Spelvin <lkml@....org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Amit Klein <aksecurity@...il.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [DRAFT PATCH] random32: make prandom_u32() output unpredictable

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 08:08:43AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 06:42:23AM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 6:33 AM Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 05:05:49AM +0200, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> > > > We have the same defines for K0 and K1 in include/linux/prandom.h and
> > > > lib/random32.c?
> > > > More room for simplifications?
> > >
> > > Definitely, I'm not surprized at all. As I said, the purpose was to
> > > discuss around the proposal, not much more. If we think it's the way
> > > to go, some major lifting is required. I just don't want to invest
> > > significant time on this if nobody cares.
> > >
> > 
> > OK.
> > 
> > Right now, I will try with the attached diff.
> 
> No, don't waste your time this way, it's not the right way to address it,
> you're still facing competition between defines. I'll do another one if
> you want to go further in the tests.

I've just pushed a new branch "20200820-siphash-noise" that I also
rebased onto latest master. It's currently running make allmodconfig
here, so that will take a while, but I think it's OK as random32.o is
already OK. I've also addressed a strange build issue caused by having
an array instead of 4 ints in siprand_state.

Please just let me know if that's OK for you now.

Thanks,
Willy

Powered by blists - more mailing lists