Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754462Ab3JCR0Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:26:25 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:52258 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754245Ab3JCR0Y (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:26:24 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: jJm5MelmvZp439yXDaq66vcJMOM0pFvfj9Ht1jxsNEwa 1380821182 Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:26:21 -0700 From: Greg KH To: "Theodore Ts'o" , Andreas Dilger , Peng Tao , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nikita Danilov Subject: Re: lustre: why does cfs_get_random_bytes() exist? Message-ID: <20131003172621.GA14775@kroah.com> References: <20131003163908.GD31721@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131003163908.GD31721@thunk.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1837 Lines: 39 On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 12:39:08PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > I've been auditing uses of get_random_bytes() since there are places > where get_random_bytes() is getting used where something weaker, such > as prandom_u32() is quite sufficient. Basically, if kernel code just > needs a random number which does not have any cryptographic > requirements (such as in ext[234]. which gets the new block group used > for inode allocations using get_random_bytes), then prandom_u32() > should be used instead of get_random_bytes() to save CPU overhead and > to reduce the drain on the /dev/urandom's entropy pool. > > Typically, the reason for this is either for historical reasons, since > prandom_u32() hadn't existed when the code was written, or because > historical code was cut and pasted into newer code. > > When I came across staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/prng.c, I saw > something which is **really** weird. It defines a cfs_rand() which is > functionally identical to prandom_u32(). More puzzlingly, it also > defines cfs_get_random_bytes() which calls get_random_bytes() and then > xor's the result with cfs_rand(). That last step has no cryptographic > effect, so I'm really wondering who thought this as a good idea and/or > necessary. > > What I think should happen is that staging/lustre/lustre/libcfs/prng.c > should be removed, and calls to cfs_rand() should get replaced > prandom_u32(), and cfs_get_random_bytes() should get replaced with > get_random_bytes(). > > Does this sound reasonable? Sounds reasonable to me, care to send a patch to do so? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/