[Buildroot] [PATCH] package/rng-tools: make jitterentropy conditional

[Matthew Weber <matthew.weber@rockwellcollins.com>]

Peter,


On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 1:13 PM Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Weber <matthew.weber@rockwellcollins.com> writes:
>
>  > Thomas,
>  > On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 2:46 PM Matthew Weber
>  > <matthew.weber@rockwellcollins.com> wrote:
>  >>
>  >> Thomas,
>  >>
>  >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 1:33 PM Thomas Petazzoni
>  >> <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> wrote:
>  >> >
>  >> > On Wed,  5 Feb 2020 12:26:08 -0600
>  >> > Matt Weber <matthew.weber@rockwellcollins.com> wrote:
>  >> >
>  >> > > The update of rng-tools from 5 to 6.7 introduced a change where
>  >> > > the jitterentropy library was enabled by default instead of
>  >> > > returning a special 66 return code to hangle the case of no
>  >> > > hwrng. This patch reverts that change and allows a user to
>  >> > > select when to enable the jitterentropy source. The bug
>  >> > > documents an issue of when a hwrng is enabled with jitterentropy
>  >> > > there is a longer boot time.
>  >> >
>  >> > I don't understand this story of the 66 return code. Could you explain
>  >> > a bit more ?
>  >>
>  >> In Buildroot commit 22cb51e1 the systemd support addition included the
>  >> successcode change based on the Fedora bugfix for ignoring if no hwrng
>  >> is present (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=892178).
>
>  > Ryan Barnett noticed that rng-tools dropped the special return code.
>  > I guess we could just drop support for this special case as well....
>  > https://github.com/nhorman/rng-tools/blob/v6.8/rngd.c#L805
>
> Has that Fedora patch ever been included upstream? I don't seem to find
> it in the history.

It doesn't look like it.  I'm wondering if we should just drop this
systemd unit return behavior and put a comment in the service file
about enabling an entropy package if this service fails without a
hardware rng present.  Seems too complicated to try and cover this
special case.

>
> I btw see there is a 6.9 release with more bugfixes, care to send a
> patch bumping the version?

I'll review the one that was just sent.  I also ping'd the original
bug report to see if they could test with this bump as there are a
number of minor jitterentropy related fixes.
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1235396/

Matt