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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3FFDC38145 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2022 13:03:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229754AbiIGNDd (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2022 09:03:33 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50348 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229587AbiIGNDc (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2022 09:03:32 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EF876C12F for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2022 06:03:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E90D618DC for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2022 13:03:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A3DA3C433D7; Wed, 7 Sep 2022 13:03:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=zx2c4.com header.i=@zx2c4.com header.b="M1Roq5Qj" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zx2c4.com; s=20210105; t=1662555807; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=7EEFaS3U7NKEZDeQU/Wq1ska++HOrCV8tO2oWqRVnoE=; b=M1Roq5QjSSSPe06FdwCktJMG3usP33MKEXiRNIKM0253LAvLRHcLvnU6IdkGGbaC53iF8r OXG8adyuafw7rmLJGPv69CUU5fXm/2XEuZkL2rAGqVAwQ06MUifsfQ+IfS4GtxtvUAVz9E 1ux5NRFicvz6LFd142W1nz6P66LM0W4= Received: by mail.zx2c4.com (ZX2C4 Mail Server) with ESMTPSA id e03051b8 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Wed, 7 Sep 2022 13:03:27 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 15:03:22 +0200 From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" To: "Guozihua (Scott)" Cc: Eric Biggers , Linux Crypto Mailing List , Andrew Lutomirski , Theodore Ts'o , zhongguohua Subject: Re: Inquiry about the removal of flag O_NONBLOCK on /dev/random Message-ID: References: <29c4a3ec-f23f-f17f-da49-7d79ad88e284@huawei.com> <4a794339-7aaa-8951-8d24-9bc8a79fa9f3@huawei.com> <761e849c-3b9d-418e-eb68-664f09b3c661@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 12:16:56PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 10:25 AM Guozihua (Scott) wrote: > > > > On 2022/7/26 19:33, Guozihua (Scott) wrote: > > > On 2022/7/26 19:08, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 03:43:31PM +0800, Guozihua (Scott) wrote: > > >>> Thanks for all the comments on this inquiry. Does the community has any > > >>> channel to publishes changes like these? And will the man pages get > > >>> updated? If so, are there any time frame? > > >> > > >> I was under the impression you were ultimately okay with the status quo. > > >> Have I misunderstood you? > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Jason > > >> . > > > > > > Hi Jason. > > > > > > To clarify, I does not have any issue with this change. I asked here > > > only because I would like some background knowledge on this flag, to > > > ensure I am on the same page as the community regarding this flag and > > > the change. And it seems that I understands it correctly. > > > > > > However I do think it's a good idea to update the document soon to avoid > > > any misunderstanding in the future. > > > > > > > Our colleague suggests that we should inform users clearly about the > > change on the flag by returning -EINVAL when /dev/random gets this flag > > during boot process. Otherwise programs might silently block for a long > > time, causing other issues. Do you think this is a good way to prevent > > similar issues on this flag? > > I still don't really understand what you want. First you said this was > a problem and we should reintroduce the old behavior. Then you said no > big deal and the docs just needed to be updated. Now you're saying > this is a problem and we should reintroduce the old behavior? > > I'm just a bit lost on where we were in the conversation. > > Also, could you let me know whether this is affecting real things for > Huawei, or if this is just something you happened to notice but > doesn't have any practical impact? Just following up on this again...