Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1393596
| From | Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@gnutls.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] /dev/random - a new approach |
| Date | 2016-05-03 18:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ruLmV-2Uv-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <rrJKG-2lq-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <rrK41-2xY-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rrZPs-7hQ-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <ruJ1N-LG-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <ruJOa-1qe-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 4:48 PM, <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:57:15PM +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: >> I believe their main concern is that they want to protect applications >> which do not check error codes of system calls, when running on a >> kernel which does not provide getrandom(). That way, they have an >> almost impossible task to simulate getrandom() on kernel which do not >> support it. > > The whole *point* of creating the getrandom(2) system call is that it > can't be simulated/emulated in userspace. If it can be, then there's > no reason why the system call should exist. This is one of the > reasons why haven't implemented mysql or TLS inside the kernel. :-) > So if their standard is "we need to simulate getrandom(2) on a kernel > which does not have it", we'll **never** see glibc support for it. By > definition, this is *impossible*. I know, and I share this opinion. To their defense they will have to provide a call which doesn't make applications fail in the following scenario: 1. crypto/ssl libraries are compiled to use getrandom() because it is available in libc and and in kernel 2. everything works fine 3. the administrator downgrades the kernel to a version without getrandom() because his network card works better with that version 4. Mayhem as applications fail However I don't see a way to avoid issues - though limited to corner cases - with any imperfect emulation. It would be much clear for glibc to just require a kernel with getrandom(). regards, Nikos
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] /dev/random - a new approach Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@gnutls.org> - 2016-05-03 16:00 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] /dev/random - a new approach tytso@mit.edu - 2016-05-03 16:50 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] /dev/random - a new approach Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@gnutls.org> - 2016-05-03 18:30 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] /dev/random - a new approach "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@gmail.com> - 2016-05-03 17:10 +0200
csiph-web