archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <>
To: Thomas Gleixner <>,
	"Ahmed S. Darwish" <>
Cc: LKML <>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <>,
	Nicholas Mc Guire <>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <>,
	Andy Lutomirski <>,
	Kees Cook <>
Subject: Re: x86/random: Speculation to the rescue
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2019 18:16:33 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 4:53 PM Linus Torvalds
<> wrote:
> But hey, here's a made-up patch. It basically does jitter entropy, but
> it uses a more complex load than the fibonacci LFSR folding: it calls
> "schedule()" in a loop, and it sets up a timer to fire.

Ok, I'm sure a lot of people will end up finding this distasteful, and
I'll admit to just waffling about it myself.

But I am supposed to close the merge window today, and honestly, I
want _something_ to happen about the getrandom() issue during the 5.4
merge cycle.

So I had a few choices

 - just ignore things and hope some consensus happens

 - start the movement to a new getrandom() interface and encourage
user space to say "yeah, I don't need _secure_ random numbers"

 - or just say "hey, a lot of people find jitter entropy reasonable,
so let's just try this".

And I went with that last choice. If it works, it makes the
getrandom() interface changes a non-issue.

I'm not saying my patch is going to be the last word on the issue. I'm
_personally_ ok with it and believe it's not crazy, and if it then
makes serious people go "Eww" and send some improvements to it, then
it has served its purpose.

But I've committed that patch and the revert of the ext4 revert to a
local branch, I'll do some basic testing of it (which honestly on my
machines are kind of pointless, since all of them support rdrand), but
assuming it passes the basic smoke tests - and I expect it to - I'll
merge it for rc1.

I also have my old readdir branch that I decided I want to merge due
to the (completely independent) discussion about filldir issues, so
I'll probably end up delaying rc1 until tomorrow, but just a heads up.
I don't want to leave this until "some time later in the -rc series",
although I will be _more_ than happy to have people send me fixes to
my somewhat simplistic patch.

That said, my patch may be simplistic, but I suspect using a loop with
a real load like schedule() and arming a timer is a lot more realistic
than some of the jitter entropy papers with their _very_ trivial
LFSR's and some made-up pointer chasing.

But yeah, I think improvements to it are also not unexpected or unreasonable ;)


  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-09-30  1:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-28 22:24 x86/random: Speculation to the rescue Thomas Gleixner
2019-09-28 23:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-09-29  7:40   ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-09-29  8:05   ` Alexander E. Patrakov
2019-09-30  1:16   ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2019-09-30  2:59     ` Linus Torvalds
2019-09-30  6:10       ` Borislav Petkov
2019-09-30 16:06         ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-01 13:51           ` Borislav Petkov
2019-10-01 17:14             ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-01 17:50               ` [PATCH] char/random: Add a newline at the end of the file Borislav Petkov
2019-09-30 18:05         ` x86/random: Speculation to the rescue Kees Cook
2019-09-30  3:37     ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-09-30 13:16       ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-09-30 16:15         ` Linus Torvalds
2019-09-30 16:32           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-09-30 17:03             ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-01 10:28           ` David Laight
2019-10-15 21:50             ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-10-01 16:15   ` Ahmed S. Darwish
2019-10-01 16:37     ` Kees Cook
2019-10-01 17:18       ` Ahmed S. Darwish
2019-10-01 17:25     ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-06 12:07       ` Pavel Machek
2019-10-02 12:01     ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-10-06 11:41   ` Pavel Machek
2019-10-06 17:26     ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-06 17:35       ` Pavel Machek
2019-10-06 18:06         ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-06 18:21           ` Pavel Machek
2019-10-06 18:26             ` Linus Torvalds
2019-10-07 11:47             ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2019-10-07 22:18               ` Pavel Machek
2019-10-08 11:33                 ` David Laight
2019-10-09  8:02                   ` Pavel Machek
2019-10-09  9:37                     ` David Laight
2019-10-01  2:14 hgntkwis

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).