From: Nicolai Stange <nstange@suse.de>
To: "Stephan Müller" <smueller@chronox.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 10:40:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zgqurhcj.fsf@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2120606.3HGXcN3vsr@positron.chronox.de> ("Stephan \=\?utf-8\?Q\?M\=C3\=BCller\=22's\?\= message of "Tue, 26 Oct 2021 10:33:05 +0200")
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...
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.
--
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg), GF: Felix Imendörffer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-27 8:40 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 [this message]
2021-10-27 18:43 ` Stephan Müller
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=87zgqurhcj.fsf@suse.de \
--to=nstange@suse.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=smueller@chronox.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