From: "Stephan Müller" <smueller@chronox.de>
To: Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>, Torsten Duwe <duwe@suse.de>,
linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] crypto: DRBG - improve 'nopr' reseeding
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 20:43:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2466958.tJBOlap2oN@positron.chronox.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87zgqurhcj.fsf@suse.de>
Am Mittwoch, 27. Oktober 2021, 10:40:12 CEST schrieb Nicolai Stange:
Hi Nicolai,
> Hi Stephan,
>
> first of all, many thanks for your prompt review!
>
> Stephan Müller <smueller@chronox.de> writes:
> > Am Montag, 25. Oktober 2021, 11:25:19 CEST schrieb Nicolai Stange:
> >> - Replace the asynchronous random_ready_callback based DRBG reseeding
> >>
> >> logic with a synchronous solution leveraging rng_is_initialized().
> >
> > Could you please help me why replacing an async method with a sync method
> > is helpful? Which problems do you see with the async method that are
> > alleviated with the swtich to the sync method? In general, an async
> > method is more powerful, though it requires a bit more code.
>
> There is no problem with the async method (*), I just don't see any
> advantage over the less complex approach of doing all reseeding
> work synchronously from drbg_generate().
>
> Before the change, there had been two sites taking care of reseeding:
> the drbg_async_seed() work handler scheduled from the
> random_ready_callback and drbg_generate().
>
> After the change, all reseeding is handled at a single place only, namely
> drbg_generate(), which, in my opinion, makes it easier to reason about.
> In particular, in preparation for patch 6/6 from this series introducing
> yet another condition for triggering a reseed...
That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
Ciao
Stephan
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nicolai
>
> (*) Except for that a wait_for_random_bytes() issued by DRBG users won't
> give any guarantees with respect to a subsequent drbg_generate()
> operation, c.f. my other mail in reply to your review on 3/6 I'm
> about to write in a second. As of now, there aren't any DRBG users
> invoking wait_for_random_bytes(), but one might perhaps consider
> changing that in the future.
>
> >> This
> >> move simplifies the code IMO and, as a side-effect, would enable DRBG
> >> users to rely on wait_for_random_bytes() to sync properly with
> >> drbg_generate(), if desired. Implemented by patches 1-5/6.
> >>
> >> - Make the 'nopr' DRBGs to reseed themselves every 5min from
> >>
> >> get_random_bytes(). This achieves at least kind of a partial prediction
> >> resistance over the time domain at almost no extra cost. Implemented
> >> by patch 6/6, the preceding patches in this series are a prerequisite
> >> for this.
Ciao
Stephan
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-27 18:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-25 9:25 [PATCH 0/6] crypto: DRBG - improve 'nopr' reseeding Nicolai Stange
2021-10-25 9:25 ` [PATCH 1/6] crypto: DRBG - prepare for more fine-grained tracking of seeding state Nicolai Stange
2021-10-26 8:37 ` Stephan Müller
2021-10-25 9:25 ` [PATCH 2/6] crypto: DRBG - track whether DRBG was seeded with !rng_is_initialized() Nicolai Stange
2021-10-26 8:41 ` Stephan Müller
2021-10-25 9:25 ` [PATCH 3/6] crypto: DRBG - move dynamic ->reseed_threshold adjustments to __drbg_seed() Nicolai Stange
2021-10-26 9:05 ` Stephan Müller
2021-10-25 9:25 ` [PATCH 4/6] crypto: DRBG - make reseeding from get_random_bytes() synchronous Nicolai Stange
2021-10-26 9:19 ` Stephan Müller
2021-10-27 9:19 ` Nicolai Stange
2021-10-27 18:44 ` Stephan Müller
2021-10-25 9:25 ` [PATCH 5/6] crypto: DRBG - make drbg_prepare_hrng() handle jent instantiation errors Nicolai Stange
2021-10-26 9:19 ` Stephan Müller
2021-10-25 9:25 ` [PATCH 6/6] crypto: DRBG - reseed 'nopr' drbgs periodically from get_random_bytes() Nicolai Stange
2021-10-26 9:33 ` Stephan Müller
2021-10-26 8:33 ` [PATCH 0/6] crypto: DRBG - improve 'nopr' reseeding Stephan Müller
2021-10-27 8:40 ` Nicolai Stange
2021-10-27 18:43 ` Stephan Müller [this message]
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=2466958.tJBOlap2oN@positron.chronox.de \
--to=smueller@chronox.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=duwe@suse.de \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nstange@suse.de \
/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