Re: deconflicting new syscall numbers for 6.11

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

Hi Linus,

On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 8:52 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 at 11:46, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I addressed this in the cover letter:
> >
> > | How do we rectify this? By putting a safe implementation of getrandom()
> > | in the vDSO, which has access to whatever information a
> > | particular iteration of random.c is using to make its decisions. I use
> > | that careful language of "particular iteration of random.c", because the
> > | set of things that a vDSO getrandom() implementation might need for making
> > | decisions as good as the kernel's will likely change over time.
>
> Jason. This smells. It's BS.

It's not BS. And that's not a real argument from you, but rather is
something else.

> Christ, let's make a deal: do a five-liner patch that adds the
> generation number to the vdso data, and basically document it as a
> "the kernel thinks you need to reseed your buffers using getrandom"
> flag.

I really do not want to expose random.c internals, and then deal with
the consequences of breaking user code that relied on that. The fake
entropy count API was already a nightmare to move away from. And I
think there's tremendous value in letting users use the kernel's
*exact algorithm*, whatever it happens to be, without syscall
overhead. Plus, this means further proliferation of bad userspace
RNGs. So I think the deal is a bad one.

> reason why that doesn't work, I'll take the 1000+ line thing

(I would like to point out that a good deal of that series is test
code and documentation and such.)

Jason