Re: [PATCH v25 10/12] LRNG - add TRNG support

Alexander E. Patrakov
2019-11-20T19:57:40Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2952 bytes --]

21.11.2019 00:51, Stephan Müller пишет:
> Am Mittwoch, 20. November 2019, 14:29:18 CET schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 09:58:35AM +0100, Stephan Müller wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag, 19. November 2019, 13:41:50 CET schrieb Greg Kroah-Hartman:
>>>
>>> Hi Greg,
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 02:07:40AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>>> As this would introduce a new device file now, is there a special
>>>>>> process that I need to follow or do I need to copy? Which
>>>>>> major/minor
>>>>>> number should I use?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking into static const struct memdev devlist[] I see
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [8] = { "random", 0666, &random_fops, 0 },
>>>>>> [9] = { "urandom", 0666, &urandom_fops, 0 },
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shall a true_random be added here with [10]?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not at all an expert on chardevs, but this sounds generally
>>>>> reasonable. gregkh is probably the real authority here.
>>>>
>>>> [10] is the aio char device node, so you better not try to overlap it or
>>>> bad things will happen :(
>>>
>>> Thanks for your insights.
>>>
>>> Which device minor number could we use?
>>
>> Get your own dynamic one by using a misc device if you _REALLY_ want to
>> add yet-another-char-node-for-random-data.
>>
>> But I would have thought that we all realize that this is not the way to
>> do things. Let's not have "random", "urandom", and "true_random" be
>> something we want to totally confuse userspace with, that way is insane.
>>
>> Please just make the existing userspace api "just work", don't add to
>> the mess.
>
> Thank you, I think we should follow that advise.
>
> With that and considering Alexander's rightful remark we have a challenge. So,
> changing the syscall may not be the right way unless we find a way to restrict
> the permissions somehow (capability? LSM? None of that seems to be a good
> fit).
>
> What about providing a /sys file? I.e. adding a file that:
>
> a) has permissions 440 per default and maybe the ownership of root:root
>
> b) allow user space to perform a chown/chgrp
>
> c) only supports reading of data from user space
>
> But then, how could we provide a common interface for the existing random.c
> and the LRNG?
>
> Or should we use a proc file for that? If yes, I guess it should not be a
> sysctl, but a "regular" proc file that should allow a chown(2) operation. On
> the other hand, is proc the right place to provide a user space interface for
> exporting data to user?
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Ciao
> Stephan
>
>

I'd say that a sys or proc file is worse than a device node, because the
wanted semantics are exactly those of a device node. Besides, a chown of
a sysfs file is something not friendly to containers. We may need
different uids in different containers to be able to access true random
data.

--
Alexander E. Patrakov

[-- Attachment #2: Криптографическая подпись S/MIME --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4052 bytes --]