On Wednesday 27 June 2007 19:03:31 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > Well, we have that userspace ABI of one hwrng char device. I did not
>
> Yeah. Talk about shortsighted ABIs that deserve to die an horrible death.
> The same goes for the watchdog ABI.
>
> > And changing it in a compatible way is probably difficult.
>
> Well, sort of. Some sort of compromise will have to be taken.
>
> IMHO, anything worth bothering with in userspace will react well to a
> symlink in /dev/hw_random, which is userspace's problem to set. Anyone else
> is expected to fix his /dev or whatever when they upgrade kernels, and we
> can always provide the old hw_random char device returning EFAULT or
> somesuch, so that it becomes very obvious that something is in need of
> attention (and it FAILS instead of just disappearing).
>
> > And then we would _still_ export some kind of hint for rngd that
> > the CPU rng device should be preferred over the bcm43xx device.
>
> Yes, export all the characterisitics of the RNG, and let userspace decide
> what to do.
>
> > How would you implement that? (We're back to my TYPE_XXX definitions ;) )
>
> I'd implement it as an IOCTL with gives back:
>
> 1. Hardware device name
> 2. Hardware device revision
> 3. expected worst-case minimum entropy per bit of output
> 4. current config expected minimum entropy per bit of output
> 5. average bit rate (worst config)
> 6. average bit rate (current config)
>
> There are probably others, but they don't come to mind at the moment. We
> could add something for type of device (oscilators, radioactive decay,
> whatever), I suppose.
>
> Use some magic value (0x00 ?) for unknown. I won't bother with the scales,
> if someone is going to write this, we can decide that later. Just remember
> that there are 10 Mbit/s RNGs out there, and 100 bit/s RNGs out there, and
> that entropy goes from 0/unknown to 1 and needs at least a precison of
> 10^-3.
>
> You also need a way to lock the RNG configuration, and you need to detect if
> you ever read a byte from it that was produced by a different
> configuration, which probably means a few more IOCTLs.
Ok, all very good ideas. Patches are welcome ;)
> I don't much like sysfs over IOCTLs for this, as you will probably need to
> be able to set and get things in an atomic way. A sysfs binary attribute
> would also work. A sysfs one-value-per-attribute bunch of them is
> completely useless from a security point of view.
hm? Why?
--
Greetings Michael.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
