From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephan Mueller Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/5] random: Blocking API for accessing nonblocking_pool Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 16:27:54 +0200 Message-ID: <1637466.ZUdUCXWXVs@tauon> References: <1921857.OvxEu6y28S@tachyon.chronox.de> <20150519135028.GC20421@thunk.org> <20150519141805.GA32663@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Theodore Ts'o , pebolle@tiscali.nl, andreas.steffen@strongswan.org, sandyinchina@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150519141805.GA32663@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-crypto.vger.kernel.org Am Dienstag, 19. Mai 2015, 22:18:05 schrieb Herbert Xu: Hi Herbert, >On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 09:50:28AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> Finally, this is only going to block *once*, when the system is >> initially botting up. Why is it so important that we get the >> asynchronous nature of this right, and why can't we solve it simply by >> just simply doing the work in a workqueue, with a completion barrier >> getting triggered once /dev/random initializes itself, and just simply >> blocking the module unload until /dev/random is initialized? > >I guess I'm still thinking of the old work queue code before >Tejun's cmwq work. Yes blocking in a work queue should be fine >as there is usually just one DRBG instance. The current modification with patch 1 to random.c is the smallest change to date. Is that then appropriate? Herbert, based on your comment now, would the currently discussed patch with waiting in the work queue in patch 3 appropriate? Or what would you like to see changed? Ciao Stephan