Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 29 Mar 2020 11:36:21 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     George Spelvin <lkml@sdf.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
        linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, Faisal Latif <faisal.latif@intel.com>,
        Shiraz Saleem <shiraz.saleem@intel.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        Bernard Metzler <bmt@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 42/50] drivers/ininiband: Use get_random_u32()
Message-ID: <20200329143621.GF20941@ziepe.ca>
References: <202003281643.02SGhN9T020186@sdf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <202003281643.02SGhN9T020186@sdf.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 08:21:45PM -0400, George Spelvin wrote:
> There's no need to get_random_bytes() into a temporary buffer.
> 
> This is not a no-brainer change; get_random_u32() has slightly weaker
> security guarantees, but code like this is the classic example of when
> it's appropriate: the random value is stored in the kernel for as long
> as it's valuable.

The mechanical transformation looks OK, but can someone who knows the
RNG confirm this statement?

Many of these places are being used in network related contexts, I
suspect the value here is often less about secrecy, more about
unguessability.

Jason