From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272607AbTHPE5O (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Aug 2003 00:57:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272608AbTHPE5O (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Aug 2003 00:57:14 -0400 Received: from waste.org ([209.173.204.2]:32932 "EHLO waste.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272607AbTHPE5N (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Aug 2003 00:57:13 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 23:57:11 -0500 From: Matt Mackall To: Jamie Lokier Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Make cryptoapi non-optional? Message-ID: <20030816045711.GD325@waste.org> References: <20030809173329.GU31810@waste.org> <20030810174528.GZ31810@waste.org> <20030813032038.GA1244@think> <20030813040614.GP31810@waste.org> <20030815221211.GA4306@think> <20030815235501.GB325@waste.org> <20030815170532.06e14e89.akpm@osdl.org> <20030816005806.GB21356@mail.jlokier.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030816005806.GB21356@mail.jlokier.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 16, 2003 at 01:58:07AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > Matt Mackall wrote: > > > I'm pretty sure there was never a time when entropy > > > accounting wasn't racy let alone wrong, SMP or no (fixed in -mm, thank > > > you). > > > > Well is has been argued that the lack of locking in the random driver is a > > "feature", adding a little more unpredictability. > > Dodgy. Does lack of locking mean users can trick /dev/random into > thinking it has more entropy than it does? Or let them detect the > time when /dev/random gains entropy, without reading it? Yes to the first, detailed at great length in a separate message. You can do timing attacks on the inputs either way. I'll repost my fix for it eventually, it's low on the list. > > Now I don't know if that makes sense or not, but the locking certainly has > > a cost. If it doesn't actually fix anything then that cost becomes a > > waste. > > Per-cpu random pools, perhaps :) I really doubt contention here is significant, but will take about ten lines to address if these locks ever show up on someone's Specweb benchmark. -- Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : of or relating to the moon