Re: Concurrent access to /dev/urandom
From: Matt Mackall
Date: Thu Dec 09 2004 - 16:31:14 EST
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 08:57:05PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 01:56:14PM -0800, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > Ted, I think this is a bit more straightforward than your patch, and
> > safer as it protects get_random_bytes() and internal extract_entropy()
> > users. And I'd be leery of your get_cpu() trick due to preempt
> > issues.
> I'm concerned that turning off interrupts during even a single SHA-1
> transform will put us above the radar with respect to the preempt
> latency statistics again. We could use a separate spinlock that only
> pretects the mix_ptr and mixing access to the pool, so we're at least
> not disabling interrupts, but we still are holding a spinlock across a
> cryptographic operation.
It's been suggested to me that a sequence lock might be the right
approach to this, which I'll try to take a look at this evening. Also,
I'm going to time the lock hold time in my previous more conventional
patch and see what kind of neighborhood we're in.
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/