From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751412AbcFRIWc (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 18 Jun 2016 04:22:32 -0400
Received: from mail.eperm.de ([89.247.134.16]:36858 "EHLO mail.eperm.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750868AbcFRIWa convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 18 Jun 2016 04:22:30 -0400
From: Stephan Mueller <smueller@chronox.de>
To: Sandy Harris <sandyinchina@gmail.com>
Cc: David =?utf-8?B?SmHFoWE=?= <djasa@redhat.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Jason Cooper <cryptography@lakedaemon.net>, John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@linux.intel.com>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>,
        linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] /dev/random - a new approach
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 10:22:28 +0200
Message-ID: <4842429.MGkO9sKMeG@positron.chronox.de>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.5-201.fc23.x86_64; KDE/4.14.20; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CACXcFm=ysn15Lh9Exeo8nKEAuBoZ7pB3eDesL_P_Ne3Kaxcunw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1466007463.20087.11.camel@redhat.com> <1466171773.20087.66.camel@redhat.com> <CACXcFm=ysn15Lh9Exeo8nKEAuBoZ7pB3eDesL_P_Ne3Kaxcunw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Am Freitag, 17. Juni 2016, 11:26:23 schrieb Sandy Harris:

Hi Sandy,

> David Jaša <djasa@redhat.com> wrote:
> > BTW when looking at an old BSI's issue with Linux urandom that Jarod
> > Wilson tried to solve with this series:
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-crypto/msg06113.html
> > I was thinking:
> > 1) wouldn't it help for large urandom consumers if kernel created a DRBG
> > instance for each of them? It would likely enhance performance and solve
> > BSI's concern of predicting what numbers could other urandom consumers
> > obtain at cost of memory footprint
> > and then, after reading paper associated with this series:
> > 2) did you evaluate use of intermediate DRBG fed by primary generator to
> > instantiate per-node DRBG's? It would allow initialization of all
> > secondary DRBGs right after primary generator initialization.
> 
> Theodore Ts'o, the random maintainer, already has a patch that
> seems to deal with this issue. He has posted more than one
> version & I'm not sure this is the best or latest, but ...
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/30/22

His latest patch set that he mentioned to appear in 4.8 covers a per-NUMA DRNG 
where there is a "primary" /dev/urandom DRNG where secondary DRNGs for the 
NUMA nodes are spawned from.


Ciao
Stephan