lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] gcc-plugins: latent_entropy: use /dev/urandom
    On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 02:38:58PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
    > Hi Kees,
    >
    > On 4/5/22, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
    > > On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 12:47:14AM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
    > >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 8:49 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
    > >> > This mixes two changes: the pRNG change and the "use urandom if
    > >> > non-deterministic" change. I think these should be split, so the pRNG
    > >> > change can be explicitly justified.
    > >>
    > >> Alright, I'll split those. Or, more probably, just drop the xorshift
    > >> thing. There's not actually a strong reason for preferring xorshift. I
    > >> did it because it produces more uniformity and is faster to compute and
    > >> all that. But none of that stuff actually matters here. It was just a
    > >> sort of "well I'm at it..." thing.
    > >
    > > Well, it's nice to have and you already wrote it, so seems a waste to
    > > just drop it. :)
    > >
    > >> > > static struct plugin_info latent_entropy_plugin_info = {
    > >> > > - .version = "201606141920vanilla",
    > >> > > + .version = "202203311920vanilla",
    > >> >
    > >> > This doesn't really need to be versioned. We can change this to just
    > >> > "vanilla", IMO.
    > >>
    > >> Okay. I suppose you want it to be in a different patch too, right? In
    > >> which case I'll leave it out and maybe get to it later. (I suppose one
    > >> probably needs to double check whether it's used for anything
    > >> interesting like dwarf debug info or whatever, where maybe it's
    > >> helpful?)
    > >
    > > Hm, I don't think it shows up anywhere, but you can just drop the hunk
    > > that touch it. I can remove them all with a separate patch later.
    > >
    >
    > Okay. That's what I did here
    > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220404230709.124508-1-Jason@zx2c4.com/
    > so awaiting your merge. (I still find all aspects of v2 more
    > preferable for a variety of weak reasons in case you'd like to merge
    > that instead, but v3 is available now.)

    v3 uses a different check for the -f option, though? Isn't that
    preferred over the v2 method?

    Also, I did some quick benchmarking, and any difference in runtime is
    completely lost in the noise, so that's good.

    --
    Kees Cook

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-04-06 01:21    [W:2.740 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site