Re: [PATCH v43 01/15] Linux Random Number Generator

From: Marcelo Henrique Cerri <marcelo.cerri@canonical.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
	Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com>, Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com>,
	Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de>, Tso Ted <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
	Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	"Alexander E. Patrakov" <patrakov@gmail.com>,
	"Ahmed S. Darwish" <darwish.07@gmail.com>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>,
	Vito Caputo <vcaputo@pengaru.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Ray Strode <rstrode@redhat.com>,
	William Jon McCann <mccann@jhu.edu>,
	zhangjs <zachary@baishancloud.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
	Lennart Poettering <mzxreary@0pointer.de>,
	Peter Matthias <matthias.peter@bsi.bund.de>,
	Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@redhat.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
	Andy Lavr <andy.lavr@gmail.com>, Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@suse.cz>,
	John Haxby <john.haxby@oracle.com>,
	Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@mailbox.org>,
	Jirka Hladky <jhladky@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v43 01/15] Linux Random Number Generator
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 06:30:03 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211210093003.lp6fexzrga3nijxn@valinor> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YbL3wNBFi2vjyvPj@kroah.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2174 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 07:46:24AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 10:43:37PM -0300, Marcelo Henrique Cerri wrote:
> > Hi, Jason. How do you think we could approach that then?
> > 
> > Are you willing to discuss the FIPS 140-3 requirements that random.c
> > doesn't currently meet so we can dive deeper on how we could implement
> > them in a way that would improve the kernel other then simply
> > providing compliance to FIPS?
> 
> Discussing things doesn't usually work well.  Let's see some working
> patches first, that solve problems that you have with the current random
> code, and we can go from there.
> 
> Again, like any other kernel patch submission, nothing new here at all.

Hi, Greg. I understand your point but we had plenty of patch
submissions already from Stephan, Nicolai and others and that didn't
work. So I am expecting that anybody taking over as the random.c
maintainer can at least provide some direction on that.

> 
> > I believe all the distros are interested in making progress on that,
> > but without a general guidance it makes very hard for us to
> > collaborate and we end up in the current situation in which each
> > distro is carrying its own "hack", as Simo mentioned before. Canonical
> > is in the same situation as the other distros and we are carrying an
> > workaround to wire up the crypto DRBG to random.c in order to archive
> > compliance.
> 
> If everyone seems to think their patches are hacks, and are not worthy
> of being submitted, then why do they think that somehow they are viable
> for their users that are actually using them?

Because although some people dislike it, FIPS is still a requirement
for many users. That's the reality and that will not change just
because there are some resistance against it.

The patches that distros are carrying are hacks because they try to
minimize risks while keeping the code as close as possible to
upstream. But that has several drawbacks, such as performance, limited
entropy sources an so on, that to me makes them not suitable for
upstream.

> 
> {sigh}
> 
> greg k-h

-- 
Regards,
Marcelo

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]