From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751847AbaHMHtA (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2014 03:49:00 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:51532 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751784AbaHMHs7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Aug 2014 03:48:59 -0400 Message-ID: <53EB1859.6030800@zytor.com> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 00:48:41 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andy Lutomirski , "Theodore Ts'o" , kvm list , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Kees Cook , X86 ML , Daniel Borkmann , Srivatsa Vaddagiri , Raghavendra K T , Gleb Natapov , Paolo Bonzini , Bandan Das , Andrew Honig Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/5] random,x86,kvm: Rework arch RNG seeds and get some from kvm References: <20140812191723.GI12871@thunk.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/12/2014 12:22 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:11:29PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> >>> What's the status of this series? I assume that it's too late for at >>> least patches 2-5 to make it into 3.17. >> >> Which tree were you hoping this patch series to go through? I was >> assuming it would go through the x86 tree since the bulk of the >> changes in the x86 subsystem (hence my Acked-by). > > There's some argument that patch 1 should go through the kvm tree. > There's no real need for patch 1 and 2-5 to end up in the same kernel > release, either. > >> >> IIRC, Peter had some concerns, and I don't remember if they were all >> addressed. Peter? >> > > I don't know. I rewrite one thing he didn't like and undid the other, > but there's plenty of opportunity for this version to be problematic, too. > Sorry, I have been heads down on the current merge window. I will look at this for 3.18, presumably after Kernel Summit. The proposed arch_get_rng_seed() is not really what it claims to be; it most definitely does not produce seed-grade randomness, instead it seems to be an arch function for best-effort initialization of the entropy pools -- which is fine, it is just something quite different. I want to look over it more carefully before acking it, though. Andy, are you going to be in Chicago? -hpa