Re: [PATCH] Make rcutorture RNG use temporal entropy

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 02:40:37PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 11:58:31AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:06:58PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 01:00:22PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 11:53:56AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:49:04 -0700
> > > > > "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Repost of http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/10/472 made available by request.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The locking used by get_random_bytes() can conflict with the
> > > > > > preempt_disable() and synchronize_sched() form of RCU.  This patch changes
> > > > > > rcutorture's RNG to gather entropy from the new cpu_clock() interface
> > > > > > (relying on interrupts, preemption, daemons, and rcutorture's reader
> > > > > > thread's rock-bottom scheduling priority to provide useful entropy),
> > > > > > and also adds and EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() to make that interface available
> > > > > > to GPLed kernel modules such as rcutorture.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Passes several hours of rcutorture.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Please explain what "conflict with" means so that I can work out if
> > > > > this is a needed-in-2.6.23 change, thanks.
> > > > 
> > > > Not needed in 2.6.23.  This change falls into the "preparation for -rt"
> > > > category.  Also in the "don't unnecessarily eat entropy, leave some for
> > > > the people needing crypographically secure randomness" category.
> > > 
> > > We've had several calls for a more fast and loose version of
> > > get_random_bytes. Generalizing one of the cookie generation functions
> > > is probably a good way to go.
> > 
> > Are you thinking in terms of secure_tcp_syn_cookie(), or did you have
> > something else in mind?
> 
> Yes. Using a hash function rather than a trivial LFSR is preferable.
> But pulling the guts out and giving it an n-bytes interface like
> get_random_bytes().

OK.  But this cannot be the first discussion of getting a fast and loose
version of get_random_bytes() into the kernel.  Anyplace I should look
for cautionary tales?  A quick search located a spirited discussion of
proposed kernel infrastructure for user-mode random number generation
back in 2003, but...

Also a 2006 proposal from Stephan Eranian: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/23/41
This appears to have gotten zero replies.  :-/  (Though not hash-based.)

Other semi-related threads:

	http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/3/15/102
	http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/9/23/337

Some years back, my reflexive design would have been per-CPU state,
accessed with interrupts disabled.  Not so good for realtime usage,
though.  One could go with per-task state in order to avoid the
interrupt disabling, which might be OK if the state is quite small.

							Thanx, Paul
-
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/