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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 628E6C4CECD for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 17:17:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E6CC2053B for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 17:17:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730861AbfIQRRK (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:17:10 -0400 Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60]:47156 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727296AbfIQRRK (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:17:10 -0400 Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x8HHGfPw028025; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 19:16:41 +0200 Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 19:16:41 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Linus Torvalds , Martin Steigerwald , "Ahmed S. Darwish" , "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Vito Caputo , Lennart Poettering , Andreas Dilger , Jan Kara , Ray Strode , William Jon McCann , "Alexander E. Patrakov" , zhangjs , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, lkml Subject: Re: Linux 5.3-rc8 Message-ID: <20190917171641.GC27999@1wt.eu> References: <20190917052438.GA26923@1wt.eu> <2508489.jOnZlRuxVn@merkaba> <20190917163456.alzodstm3hd4yrni@srcf.ucam.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190917163456.alzodstm3hd4yrni@srcf.ucam.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 05:34:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 09:27:44AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > Does anybody believe that 128 bits of randomness is a good basis for a > > long-term secure key? > > Yes, it's exactly what you'd expect for an AES 128 key, which is still > considered to be secure. AES keys are for symmetrical encryption and thus as such are short-lived. We're back to what Linus was saying about the fact that our urandom is already very good for such use cases, it should just not be used to produce long-lived keys (i.e. asymmetrical). However I'm worried regarding this precise patch about the fact that delays will add up. I think that once we've failed to wait for a first process, we've broken any hypothetical trust in terms of random quality so there's no point continuing to wait for future requests. Willy