From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:13:07 +0100 Subject: [RFC/PATCH 0/3] Add devicetree scanning for randomness In-Reply-To: <20140217155419.682F7C401D4@trevor.secretlab.ca> References: <1392168805-14200-1-git-send-email-lauraa@codeaurora.org> <201402121251.06280.arnd@arndb.de> <20140217155419.682F7C401D4@trevor.secretlab.ca> Message-ID: <1418981.0py7JxXCp8@wuerfel> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Monday 17 February 2014 15:54:19 Grant Likely wrote: > On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:20:00 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:45:54PM -0500, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > > > The bootloader would then load this file into ram, and pass the > > > address/size to the kernel either via dt, or commandline. kaslr (run in > > > the decompressor) would consume some of this randomness, and then > > > random.c would consume the rest in a non-crediting initialization. > > > > Sure is a neat idea, but I think in general it would probably be smart > > to include the entire FDT blob in the early random pool, that way you > > get MACs and other machine unique data too. > > I applied a patch that did exactly that (109b623629), and then reverted > it (b920ecc82) shortly thereafter because add_device_randomness() is > a rather slow function and FDTs can get large. I'd like to see someone > do a reasonable analysis on the cost of using an FDT for randomness > before I reapply a patch doing something similar. An awful lot of the > FDT data is not very random, but there are certainly portions of it that > are appropriate for the random pool. Could we use a faster hash function that scans the entire device tree and then just feed the output of that into add_device_randomness? We probably can't expect that there is a lot of entropy in the DT blob, so the result wouldn't be all that different in terms of quality of the random seed. Arnd