netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/5] Renaming weak prng invocations - prandom_bytes_state, prandom_u32

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]

Message-ID: <Y5nyVXv1KpX5baQE@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Dec 2022 17:57:09 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     Stanislaw Gruszka <stanislaw.gruszka@...ux.intel.com>,
        david.keisarschm@...l.huji.ac.il, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Renaming weak prng invocations -
 prandom_bytes_state, prandom_u32_state

On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 05:53:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 04:15:49PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2022 at 1:34 PM Stanislaw Gruszka
> > <stanislaw.gruszka@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 03:35:20PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > > > Please CC me on future revisions.
> > > >
> > > > As of 6.2, the prandom namespace is *only* for predictable randomness.
> > > > There's no need to rename anything. So nack on this patch 1/5.
> > >
> > > It is not obvious (for casual developers like me) that p in prandom
> > > stands for predictable. Some renaming would be useful IMHO.
> > 
> > Renaming makes backports more complicated, because stable teams will
> > have to 'undo' name changes.
> > Stable teams are already overwhelmed by the amount of backports, and
> > silly merge conflicts.
> > 
> > Take another example :
> > 
> > u64 timecounter_read(struct timecounter *tc)
> > 
> > You would think this function would read the timecounter, right ?
> > 
> > Well, it _updates_ many fields from @tc, so a 'better name' would also
> > be useful.
> 
> Right, at some point we become into the world of
> 
> #define true 0
> 
> because... (read below)
> 
> > linux kernel is not for casual readers.
> 
> P.S. I believe you applied a common sense and in some cases
>      the renames are necessary.

And before you become to a wrong conclusion by reading between the lines,
no, I'm not taking either side (to rename or not to rename) in this case.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko