On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:08:07AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:23:03PM -0500, Greg Price wrote:
> > That's a good idea. I've worried about the same thing, but hadn't
> > thought of that solution.
>
> I think the key is that we set a default of requiring 128 bits, or 5
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:23:03PM -0500, Greg Price wrote:
> > The basic idea is that we don't want to break systems, but we do want
> > to gently coerce people to do the right thing. Otherwise, I'm worried
> > that distros, or embedded/mobile/consume electronics engineers would
> > just patch ou
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 08:51:18PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/12/2013 08:37 PM, Greg Price wrote:
> > I'm thinking only of boot-time blocking. The idea is that once
> > /dev/urandom is seeded with, say, 128 bits of min-entropy in the
> > absolute, information-theoretic sense, it can prod
On 11/12/2013 08:37 PM, Greg Price wrote:
>
> I'm thinking only of boot-time blocking. The idea is that once
> /dev/urandom is seeded with, say, 128 bits of min-entropy in the
> absolute, information-theoretic sense, it can produce an infinite
> supply (or something like 2^128 bits, which amounts
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 08:02:09PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> One thing, too, if we are talking about anything other than
> boot-time-only blocking: going from a nonblocking to a blocking
> condition means being able to accept a short read, and right now *many*
> users of /dev/urandom are not r
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 10:32:05PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> One of the things I've been thinking about with respect to making
> /dev/urandom block is being able to configure (via a module parameter
> which could be specified on the boot command line) which allows us to
> set a limit for how lo
On 11/12/2013 07:32 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 05:40:09PM -0500, Greg Price wrote:
>>
>> Beyond these easy cleanups, I have a couple of patches queued up (just
>> written yesterday, not quite finished) to make /dev/urandom block at
>> boot until it has enough entropy, as the
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 05:40:09PM -0500, Greg Price wrote:
>
> Beyond these easy cleanups, I have a couple of patches queued up (just
> written yesterday, not quite finished) to make /dev/urandom block at
> boot until it has enough entropy, as the "Mining your P's and Q's"
> paper recommended and
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:24:44PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> My apologies for not being able to get to this patch series before the
> patch window opened --- this week has been crazy. None of the changes
> seem to be especially critical, and a number of the patches don't
> apply cleanly to the
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 06:57:25PM -0500, Greg Price wrote:
>
> I recently read through the random number generator's code.
> This series has fixes for some minor things I spotted.
>
> Four of the patches touch comments only. Four simplify code without
> changing its behavior (total diffstat: 35
Hi Ted, hi all,
I recently read through the random number generator's code.
This series has fixes for some minor things I spotted.
Four of the patches touch comments only. Four simplify code without
changing its behavior (total diffstat: 35 insertions, 73 deletions),
and one is a trivial signedn
11 matches
Mail list logo
