Re: [PATCH 1/3] Make /dev/urandom scalable

[Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3281 bytes --]

On 2015-09-25 07:41, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2015-09-24 16:14, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 03:11:23PM -0400, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>>> That is a startling result.  Please say what architecture, kernel
>>>> version, dieharder version and commandline arguments you are using to
>>>> get 10% WEAK or FAILED assessments from dieharder on /dev/urandom.
>>>
>>> I do not remember what exact dieharder version or command-line arguments
>>> (this was almost a decade ago), except that I compiled it from source
>>> myself, I do remember it was a 32-bit x86 processor (as that was
>>> sadly all I
>>> had to run Linux on at the time), and an early 2.6 series kernel
>>> (which if I
>>> remember correctly was already EOL by the time I was using it).
>>
>> It might have been nice if you had said this from the beginning
>> instead of making an unqualified statement with the assumption that it
>> was applicable to kernels likely to be used today in non-obsolete
>> systems.  Otherwise it risks generating a click-bait article on
>> Phoronix that would get people really worried for no good reason...
> I sincerely apologize about this, I should have been more specific right
> from the beginning (I need to get better about that when talking to
> people, I'm so used to dealing with some of my friends who couldn't
> event tell you the difference between RAM and a hard drive, think a bus
> is only something you use for transportation, and get confused when I
> try to properly explain even relatively simple CS and statistics concepts).
>>
>> There was a bug a long, long time ago (which where we weren't doing
>> sufficient locking and if two processes raced reading from
>> /dev/urandom at the same time, it was possible that the two processes
>> would get the same value read out from /dev/urandom).  This was fixed
>> a long time ago, though, and in fact the scalability problem which
>> Andi is trying to fix was caused by that extra locking that was
>> added.  :-)
>>
>> It's possible that is what you saw.  I don't know, since there was no
>> reproduction information to back up your rather startling claim.
> I don't think this was what I hit, I'm pretty sure I had serialized the
> dieharder runs.
>>
>> If you can reproduce consistent Dieharder failures, please do let us
>> know with detailed reproduction instructures.
> Will do.
OK, just started a couple of runs in parallel using different generators 
using the following command line:
dieharder -a -m 32 -k 1 -Y 1 -g XXX
with one each for:
/dev/urandom (502)
AES_OFB (205)
glibc random() (039)
mt19937 (013)
The above command line will run all dieharder tests with 12800 psamples, 
using a higher than default precision, and re-running tests that return 
WEAK until it gets a PASS or FAIL.  Even on the relatively fast (at 
least, fast for a desktop) system I'm running them on, I expect it will 
take quite some time to finish (although regardless of that I'm probably 
not going to be getting back to it until Monday).

Interestingly, based on what dieharder is already saying about 
performance, /dev/urandom is slower than AES_OFB (at least, on this 
particular system, happy to provide hardware specs if someone wants).


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3019 bytes --]