Re: deconflicting new syscall numbers for 6.11

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

Hi Linus,

On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 7:47 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> One final note: the reason I'm so negative about this all is that the
> random number subsystem has such an absolutely _horrendous_ history of
> two main conflicting issues: people wanting reasonable usable random
> numbers on one side, and then the people that discuss what the word
> "entropy" means on the other side.

Yes. My entire goal since the beginning has been to clean up the filth
and insanity that's emerged from this. And there's a real userspace
side of filth too that's not going to be solved without this.

> And honestly, I don't want the kernel stuck even *more* in the middle
> of that morass.

Certainly I am not bringing us anywhere near that morass. I'm the one
who's been diligently trying to dig us out of it!

> I strongly suspect that one reason why glibc people
> would want this is the exact same reason: _they_ don't want to be
> stuck in the same padded room with the crazies _either_, so they love
> the concept of "somebody else's problem".

On the contrary, the glibc people were busy doing something grotesque
and incomplete, when I paused things so that I could do it properly
where it belongs.

> potato" thing. Which is why I really really want those real users
> standing up and saying "we can't use rdrand and rdtsc and our own
> mixing".

The point is that the people trying to "use rdrand and rdtsc and our
own mixing" are in for a world of pain, will come to a solution that
isn't complete and will fall over catastrophically in some
circumstances, and proliferates the problem.

Jason