From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8274FFF885D for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:18:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:Cc:To:From:Date: MIME-Version:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=FMqhKORl3YQEQXWUYIIr0KBlxSy/mAbm6jt7rtGV0CA=; b=QzkeTyCWpHEhbPpqaoah7Gc+hj CR4bjWsYtp6oB2opSBmVIM8U4jJh9zVe3kpZwFraCZa2G/EuHCMtYp5QKOCTiroy9vldRi645Qw+8 69pBcQEMg+aTE7xqPs/JMwnk2JsdZqhIdV8FO9aMgpA3FL1pok5zxbM0R1FFMxVoL1Oi7FaEPDqBo ydAZtAbnyxWBiU9K7650+uxdO02TtGl6jm2HFYJavjINkEg7IzwIboM6nl9acmjvwdhQ7WAA9M4bM XncqM5ERAQKnEuhSfJEZ/DtQjT5rr8THGHED8nsJGlHb810cSTz4PCrcpC35k5IkyZaeQDTFzHvTF vCT3VjSw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wHhOd-00000001PfT-2Dmx; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:18:35 +0000 Received: from sea.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c0a:e001:78e:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wHhOb-00000001Pek-02ru for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:18:34 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by sea.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F5B440DFF; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:18:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E9EB6C2BCB3; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:18:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1777378712; bh=GeqJqgST61g8OZ+fogX7D5CEU6hK/KqNPJ7A/LOYCoY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=LYF9DMXyjPku5RHvarWGr/REtS4xBQNefGlQ/j1sTcQJwuMSU3HPFBPyK+DCZjyMR xnW9XQIP2RAYOEZvWBHRdjS7xT/HPOjc+VKOqyLWSHCNgGSVjCQ6dV044/95qZQm6+ NKNzBSgusgdjSnPbaxKvQmKpbIppjUrNeQueHjdv9fpT456yaoQXmoMwHbWEAsmF8/ XUUZwnCK1ZkqrsWUKU1+h7nAztyLkuNXDGuPcI6rOqVpCiUmAnI5NA/35SZc71lV1Z oEX21fwdECZ36l8eXUqjayZl9HCRfVFPnG0wtnrLLNbEe/pzvGf8c7F4LtqAslzlqY I6WM/iJ7+U7lg== Received: from phl-compute-01.internal (phl-compute-01.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailfauth.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA55F4006B; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 08:18:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-imap-02 ([10.202.2.81]) by phl-compute-01.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 28 Apr 2026 08:18:30 -0400 X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefhedrtddtgdekudehgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpefoggffhffvvefkjghfufgtgfesthhqredtredtjeenucfhrhhomhepfdetrhguuceu ihgvshhhvghuvhgvlhdfuceorghruggssehkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepueetieduieegkeejvdehudeiheettefgtdeugffhjefghfeftdelhedvheff hfdvnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheprg hrugdomhgvshhmthhprghuthhhphgvrhhsohhnrghlihhthidqudeijedthedttdejledq feefvdduieegudehqdgrrhgusgeppehkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghesfihorhhkohhfrghrug drtghomhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepudefpdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphht thhopegrlhgvgigrnhgurhgvrdgsvghllhhonhhisegsohhothhlihhnrdgtohhmpdhrtg hpthhtohepuggrvhgvmhesuggrvhgvmhhlohhfthdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopeifrgih figrrhgughgvvghksehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohephhgvrhgsvghrthesgh honhguohhrrdgrphgrnhgrrdhorhhgrdgruhdprhgtphhtthhopehkrggsvghlsehkvghr nhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehlihhnuhhsfieskhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtg hpthhtohepthhhohhrshhtvghnrdgslhhumheslhhinhhugidruggvvhdprhgtphhtthho pehlihhnuhigqdgrrhhmqdhkvghrnhgvlheslhhishhtshdrihhnfhhrrgguvggrugdroh hrghdprhgtphhtthhopehnihgtohhlrghsrdhfvghrrhgvsehmihgtrhhotghhihhprdgt ohhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: ice86485a:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.phl.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id B060A700065; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 08:18:30 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 14:18:10 +0200 From: "Ard Biesheuvel" To: =?UTF-8?Q?Marek_Beh=C3=BAn?= , "Bill Cox" Cc: "Thorsten Blum" , "Herbert Xu" , "David S. Miller" , "Nicolas Ferre" , "Alexandre Belloni" , "Claudiu Beznea" , "Linus Walleij" , stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <25ntssyy6t5uwxlwfpmrpzpcq6xv62l643hflf26hxi6lv5wqu@6vub6ysczjvd> References: <20260428101430.514838-3-thorsten.blum@linux.dev> <25ntssyy6t5uwxlwfpmrpzpcq6xv62l643hflf26hxi6lv5wqu@6vub6ysczjvd> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] crypto: atmel-sha204a - drop hwrng quality reduction for ATSHA204A Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20260428_051833_089700_44EB33FA X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 22.77 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi Marek, On Tue, 28 Apr 2026, at 13:18, Marek Beh=C3=BAn wrote: > Adding Bill Cox (waywardgeek) to the conversation. > > In the meantime Nack from me on this patch. > > From the original messages by Bill, it seems to me the part he was rev= iewing > was the ATSHA204A. > According to Landon Cox, the Atmel engineer, the hashlet has a ATSHA204 = not ATSHA204A ([2] in the original post) > In subsequent reply [1] Bill states > > While there is some evidence, there is still no convincing proof tha= t there > is an entropy source in this device at all. There is some evidence = that > Atmel has inserted a back-door. My advice is to avoid this line of = parts > from Atmel for cryptographic use. > > In another message Peter Gutmann asks about ATECC108 [2] and Bill repl= ies [3] > > This part uses the same language to describe the random number gener= ator. > It is "high quality". I think that's pretty funny. > I would be interested in seeing if the new part can generate random = numbers > continuously, or if it fails after it's EEPROM wears out like their = other > parts. The use of an EEPROM seed is for PWN-ing your RNG, not makin= g it > more secure. > > IMO the comments from the actual reviewer are more relevant than those= of the > engineer working for the company which was accused of creating low qua= lity > / backdoored TRNG, at least until the Atmel engineer provides some eva= luation > code for the device (which they suggested they might do [4], but never= did as > far as I can find). > > Maybe we can instead change the ATECC quality to something like 32? Do= es that > even make sense? > So Bill recommends against using the ATSHA204 based on his hands-on expe= rience, and extrapolates this to ATSHA204A/ATECC/etc based on the fact that the = wording in the data sheet description looks similar. OTOH, the Atmel engineer claiming to have been involved in constructing = these parts acknowledges the ATSHA204 issue, and claims that the other parts a= re not affected in the same way. I don't think we should be using the quality field as a reflection of our assessment whether this engineer is lying or speaking the truth, or the likelihood that the RNG is backdoored. It is a quality metric not a trus= t metric. So if the RNG is flawed and does not produce perfect entropy, we should = set the quality value to reflect this. If the device is compromised, it shou= ld be avoided entirely, and what the driver does is irrelevant. IOW, let the user decide - if they choose to use the device, don't cripp= le it based on our skepticism alone.