From: <bogus@does.not.exist.com>
To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org
Subject: No subject
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 18:31:33 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mailman.4.1483869235.4005.ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org> (raw)
"""
Since ADC was not designed to be a dedicated HW RNG, we do not want to
bind it to /dev/hwrng framework directly.
"""
> Where is the description of the RNG, where is the test implementation?
> >
> > Otherwise, your patch will cause high CPU load, as continuously read ADC
> > data if entropy bits under write_wakeup_threshold.
>
> The issue is that although you may have analyzed it, others are unable to
> measure the quality of the RNG and assess the design as well as the
> implementation of the RNG. This RNG is the only implementation of a hardware
> RNG that per default and without being able to change it at runtime injects
> data into the input_pool where the noise source cannot be audited. Note, even
> other respected RNG noise sources like the Intel RDRAND will not feed into /
> dev/random per default in a way that dominates all other noise sources.
>
> I would like to be able to deactivate that noise source to the extent that it
> does not cause /dev/random to unblock. The reason is that your noise source
> starts to dominate all other noise sources.
I think the short-term problem here is the config logic:
config ATH9K_HWRNG
bool "Random number generator support"
depends on ATH9K && (HW_RANDOM = y || HW_RANDOM = ATH9K)
default y
If you have *any* hwrngs you want to use and you have an ath9k card
(HW_RANDOM = y and ATH9K != n), you get the behavior Stephan is pointing
out.
Short term, we should just default no here.
> If you think that this patch is a challenge because your driver starts to
> spin, please help and offer another solution.
Well, I don't buy the reasoning listed above for not using the hwrng
framework. Interrupt timings were never designed to be a source of entropy
either. We need to grab it where ever we can find it, especially on
embedded systems. Documentation/hw_random.txt even says:
"""
This data is NOT CHECKED by any fitness tests, and could potentially be
bogus (if the hardware is faulty or has been tampered with).
"""
I really don't think there's a problem with adding these sorts of
sources under char/hw_random/. I think the only thing we would be
concerned about, other than the already addressed entropy estimation,
would be constraining the data rate.
Is ath9k the only wireless card that exposes ADC registers? What about
sound cards?
thx,
Jason.
next reply other threads:[~2016-11-19 18:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-19 18:31 bogus [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-11-19 18:31 No subject bogus
2016-11-19 18:31 bogus
2016-11-19 18:31 bogus
2016-06-13 6:24 bogus
2016-06-13 6:24 bogus
2016-02-09 7:29 bogus
2015-11-16 16:13 bogus
2015-10-12 17:26 bogus
2014-09-13 19:40 bogus
2014-09-13 19:40 bogus
2014-09-13 19:40 bogus
2014-09-13 19:40 bogus
2014-09-13 19:40 bogus
2013-09-15 9:49 bogus
2013-09-15 9:49 bogus
2013-09-15 9:49 bogus
2013-04-03 10:31 bogus
2013-04-03 10:31 bogus
2013-04-03 10:31 bogus
2013-04-03 10:31 bogus
2013-01-16 21:46 bogus
2013-01-16 21:46 bogus
2012-11-08 9:33 bogus
2012-05-25 15:26 bogus
2012-05-25 15:26 bogus
2012-04-05 7:54 bogus
2012-04-05 7:54 bogus
2012-02-27 5:00 bogus
2012-02-27 5:00 bogus
2012-02-27 5:00 bogus
2012-01-15 8:24 bogus
2011-11-12 14:39 bogus
2011-11-12 14:39 bogus
2011-08-05 3:08 bogus
2011-08-05 3:08 bogus
2011-08-05 3:08 bogus
2011-08-05 3:08 bogus
2011-08-05 3:08 bogus
2011-06-04 23:16 bogus
2011-06-04 23:16 bogus
2011-04-07 5:55 bogus
2011-04-07 5:55 bogus
2011-04-07 5:55 bogus
2011-04-07 5:55 bogus
2011-04-07 5:55 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-12-19 23:59 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-09-24 14:53 bogus
2010-07-23 10:05 bogus
2010-03-25 17:02 bogus
2010-03-25 17:02 bogus
2009-02-27 19:01 bogus
2009-02-27 19:01 bogus
2009-02-27 19:01 bogus
2009-02-27 19:01 bogus
2009-02-27 19:01 bogus
2009-02-27 19:01 bogus
2009-02-27 19:01 bogus
2009-02-15 8:49 bogus
2009-01-04 17:33 bogus
2009-01-04 17:33 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-10-14 11:50 bogus
2008-07-28 4:41 bogus
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=mailman.4.1483869235.4005.ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org \
--to=bogus@does.not.exist.com \
--cc=ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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).