From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59848C43381 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:37:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB5121D79 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:37:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728278AbgLWPeB (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:34:01 -0500 Received: from mail.zx2c4.com ([192.95.5.64]:33279 "EHLO mail.zx2c4.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728266AbgLWPeA (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Dec 2020 10:34:00 -0500 Received: by mail.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTP id 7255665a; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:24:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=zx2c4.com; h=mime-version :references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; s=mail; bh=cPxPg5L3FiTf53bj1fIQGjA/waI=; b=O4gSMF ECWRin2VHyK2Oc+z3RVR4wb2ad63B2hP2pJL0L3Mdac1hudTIFJ4M8qjPMLTzgSq tKQ0fYGXlpF3LXSK2R/Hq0p42BTWa44HhXmsG8KvhgYzcr0CwbBDbaansucqPRDO ynoODZiR7NoafRyOUA2h+LChZO421Y4HQyfHZk9h3YG0WMvmsfg02oQ79KBufdHR CbdjlRoeFLpPrWRp16Vxq7E/LBRluakRAKpOoo+YrumgHwAOwJUbngSeZX75UrHS mDbSQYX0uUywwTpMhsslQ5bPyC0hXsVCzjzeTmI857jVu5shH0TdI8QoZJpKXObW 1oudc83ggS3cG3gA== Received: by mail.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPSA id 31d7647c (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Wed, 23 Dec 2020 15:24:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-f169.google.com with SMTP id a16so14900332ybh.5; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 07:33:15 -0800 (PST) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532mCfj8EYQrf0Ac73tgJxxmsdmWjk7HXfclrZbf7D/gBTFGp6DR 4ZkZOdoU9e07b3bd9YiDaq2iTqjvwYIo8AwuscY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwTxW5gLWApSRxGBYFLPC5JovUF0Jg/9Qegw81NaR32opuLgSSi9L8TBzbwu1No9mtDAhoJkX2lCn60kS2Blv0= X-Received: by 2002:a25:4744:: with SMTP id u65mr38977305yba.239.1608737594497; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 07:33:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201130151231.GA24862@lst.de> <20201130165339.GE5364@mit.edu> <20201218132519.kj3nz7swsx7vvlr5@valinor.lan> <20201223132851.55d19271@blackhole.lan> <20201223151014.57caf98b@ezekiel.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:33:03 +0100 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: drivers/char/random.c needs a (new) maintainer To: Stephan Mueller Cc: Petr Tesarik , Torsten Duwe , Marcelo Henrique Cerri , "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Linus Torvalds , Willy Tarreau , Linux Crypto Mailing List , Nicolai Stange , LKML , Arnd Bergmann , "Eric W. Biederman" , "Alexander E. Patrakov" , "Ahmed S. Darwish" , Matthew Garrett , Vito Caputo , Andreas Dilger , Jan Kara , Ray Strode , William Jon McCann , zhangjs , Andy Lutomirski , Florian Weimer , Lennart Poettering , Peter Matthias , Neil Horman , Randy Dunlap , Julia Lawall , Dan Carpenter , And y Lavr , Eric Biggers , Ard Biesheuvel , simo@redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 4:26 PM Stephan Mueller wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, dem 23.12.2020 um 15:32 +0100 schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld: > > > > I would, however, be interested in a keccak-based construction. But > > just using the keccak permutation does not automatically make it > > "SHA-3", so we're back at the same issue again. FIPS is simply not > > interesting for our requirements. > > Using non-assessed cryptography? Sounds dangerous to me even though it may be > based on some well-known construction. "assessed" is not necessarily the same as FIPS. Don't conflate the two. I don't appreciate that kind of dishonest argumentation. And new constructions that I'm interested in would be formally verified (like the other crypto work I've done) with review and buy-in from the cryptographic community, both engineering and academic. I have no interest in submitting "non-assessed" things developed in a vacuum, and I'm displeased with your attempting to make that characterization. Similarly, any other new design proposed I would expect a similar amount of rigor. The current RNG is admittedly a bit of a mess, but at least it's a design that's evolved. Something that's "revolutionary", rather than evolutionary, needs considerably more argumentation. So, please, don't strawman this into the "non-assessed" rhetoric.