From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756834AbZEONtj (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2009 09:49:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751763AbZEONt3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2009 09:49:29 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:60808 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751461AbZEONt2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2009 09:49:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 15:47:17 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jake Edge , Alan@hera.kernel.org, security@kernel.org, "Eric W. Biederman" , Roland McGrath , Linux@hera.kernel.org, List , Eric Paris , James Morris , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, Arjan@hera.kernel.org, Matt Mackall , Dave Jones , Andrew Morton , stable@kernel.org, Cox , de Ven Subject: Re: [Security] [patch] random: make get_random_int() more random Message-ID: <20090515134717.GA16389@elte.hu> References: <20090505063156.GA24504@elte.hu> <20090505195246.GC21973@elte.hu> <20090505202219.GL31071@waste.org> <20090506103034.GA25203@elte.hu> <20090506162543.GT31071@waste.org> <20090506200954.GA21484@elte.hu> <20090514164737.6eaab4f0@chukar> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 14 May 2009, Jake Edge wrote: > > > > It seems like this should be queued up for stable, yes? I just > > saw the 2.6.29.4 review patches go out, but this wasn't part of > > it ... > > Well, I was hoping to maybe have actual timing numbers from some > better hash, in case Matt can make one that is efficient enough. > So I committed the randomness improvement as a clear _improvement_ > over what we had, but it may not be the final version. yep, it was just a quick hack really. If someone can do a stronger hash that also happens to be faster i guess we all will be happy campers. The performance figures showed room for improvement - how well are those hashes optimized? Many thousands of cycles ... is that really justified? > That said, I guess the same argument can be used for pushing it > towards stable too. Even if we end up doing something fancier, the > patch is clearly not any worse than what we have currently. Agreed. Havent seen any issues due to it. Jake, mind bouncing the commit notification to stable@kernel.org? Ingo