Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] random: Add support for architectural random hooks | From | Matt Mackall <> | Date | Sat, 30 Jul 2011 14:13:54 -0500 |
| |
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 08:20 -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> wrote: > > > > Did you even look at these patches? > > Umm. My exact point about the email was that we should if anything > change Peter's patch *away* from some kind of abstracted driver > interface.
Well then rather than saying my NAK doesn't matter, you should say you also NAK it.
> But that was what you were arguing for, and that was what I > was dismissing.
Is there a reason you think making RDRAND available to userspace as a HWRNG is a bad idea? Is there a reason it's not the most obviously correct, least controversial first step to supporting this hardware?
No, there's not. Which is why I asked Peter to do this weeks ago.
> So when you argue for not taking the patches because you want a > generic interface, I tell you that the argument is bogus.
It will only be bogus when Peter shows up with a patch that doesn't touch /dev/urandom, which IS a generic interface.
> Now, if you now argue that we should make it closer, and not take > Peter's patches for *that* reason, then I'd be in whole-hearted > agreement with you.
There are two sets of possible consumers here, in-kernel and userspace. Peter's patches are aimed squarely at the latter but you seem to be talking exclusively about in-kernel users.
This is a lot like RDTSC. Sure, it makes sense to have an in-kernel inline for this. I've even suggested a name. But when it comes to gettimeofday(), we're going to insist on using a clocksource and we're going to insist that it meets all the guarantees that gettimeofday() normally makes.
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
| |